Aelia Capitolina in Context: Roman Policy in Judaea in the Time of Hadrian [1 ed.] 9789042948365, 9042948361, 9789042948372

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
A DATE FOR THE FOUNDINGOF AELIA CAPITOLINA

Citation preview

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

IN

ANCIENT CULTURE

AND

24

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT ROMAN POLICY IN JUDAEA IN THE TIME OF HADRIAN by MIRIAM BEN ZEEV HOFMAN

PEETERS

RELIGION

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES IN ANCIENT CULTURE AND RELIGION

EDITOR Leonard V. Rutgers (Utrecht) EDITORIAL BOARD Béatrice Caseau (Paris) Wolfram Kinzig (Bonn) Blake Leyerle (Notre Dame, IN) Paolo Liverani (Florence) Anne Marie Luijendijk (Princeton, NJ) Jodi Magness (Chapel Hill, NC) David Satran (Jerusalem)

Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 24

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT ROMAN POLICY IN JUDAEA IN THE TIME OF HADRIAN

BY

MIRIAM BEN ZEEV HOFMAN

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2023

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN: 978-90-429-4836-5 eISBN: 978-90-429-4837-2 D/2023/0602/16

To David Zvi

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XV

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evidence of the Numismatic and the Archaeological Testimonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Points at Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1. A Date for the Founding of Aelia Capitolina . . . . . . The Testimonies of Dio and Eusebius . . . . . . . The Numismatic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . A Date for the Official Founding . . . . . . . . . An Earlier Date for the Beginning of the Preparatory Building Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards an Understanding of the Background of Dio’s and Eusebius’s Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. What May Have Prompted Hadrian’s Decision to Found a Roman Colony in Jerusalem? . . . . . . . . . . . . Aelia Capitolina in the Context of Hadrian’s Impressive Building Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Reasons Underlying the Founding of the Roman Colonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 12 23 23 24 29 31 41 59 59 69

3. The Exclusion of the Jews from Aelia Capitolina and its Surroundings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

4. Aelia Capitolina in the Context of the National and International Situations Prevailing at the Time . . . . . . . . Issues at Stake at the Beginning of Hadrian’s Reign . .

85 85

VIII

CONTENTS

117-130 CE: Changes in Roman Policy in Judaea . . The Replacement of the Roman Governor . . . A Network of New Roads . . . . . . . . . A New Juridical Status and the Doubling of the Roman Military Forces. . . . . . . . . . . Shifting Balances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hadrian’s Visit to Judaea . . . . . . . . . . . .

100 100 105 109 112 118

5. Possible Jewish Reactions: Working Hypotheses . . . . . 145 6. Was Aelia Capitolina a Standard Roman Colony? . . . . 157 7. Might Hadrian’s Policy Have Been Inspired by that Implemented by Antiochus Epiphanes? . . . . . . . . . . 165 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Indexes . . . . . . . . . Sources . . . . . . Coins . . . . Inscriptions . . Papyri . . . . Literary Sources Names . . . . . . Deities . . . . Emperors . . . Personal Names Places . . . . . . . Selected Topics . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

215 215 215 216 216 216 217 217 218 218 219 223

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It was Prof. Günter Stemberger who aroused my interest in Hadrian’s policy in Judaea, calling my attention to an inscription about a governor until then unknown, who was sent to Judaea soon after Hadrian became emperor.1 Then, during the Conference on the Bar Kokhba War which took place in Haifa in June 2016 under the auspices of Prof. Menachem Mor, a paper by Dr. Shlomit WekslerBdolah on the recent discoveries of the archaeological excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem made it clear that the works for the construction of the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina started, too, at the very beginning of Hadrian’s reign. This raised the question, how did it happen that from the testimony of Eusebius one rather gets the impression that the founding of the colony was a punitive measure by Hadrian in the wake of the Bar Kokhba War. The whole subject, it appeared, deserved further enquiry. It was the beginning of the troubled time of Covid 19. Everyday life came to a halt. The only positive side was the fact that suddenly, confined to home, there was plenty of time. With closed libraries, I was able to continue working thanks to the Interlibrary Loan Department of the Aranne Library of the Ben Gurion University, run by Alona Tzadik and Elena Katz, and I wish to thank them and all those who have offered me their assistance. First of all, Prof. Leonard Rutgers for accepting my work in his prestigious series Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion published at Peeters, and for being so kind as to go through my work thoroughly and make major pertinent and significant suggestions. My thanks are also due to Prof. Edward Dabrowa for his valuable comments, and to Prof. Giancarlo Lacerenza, Prof. Leah Disegni, Dr. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Dr. Yael Gorin-Rosen who were helpful in assisting me in bibliographical matters. I would not have been able to include the pictures of coins and inscriptions without the valuable assistance of Dr. Linda Zolshan, Prof. Giancarlo 1

 See below, 103-104, note 100.

X

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Lacerenza, Dr. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Dr. Leah Disegni, Dr. Rachel Bar-Nathan and especially Dr. Yoav Farhi and Kleanthis Sidiropoulos, the curator of the Herakleion Museum. To them I owe the deepest gratitude. I also wish to thank Dr. Elisheva German, whose insights have been of precious help all the way, Fay Lipshitz for her assistance in language queries, Michal Britman for graphic support and Shoshana Mordechai for freeing me from domestic cares. Last but not least, I wish to express my gratitude to my wonderful daughters Michal, Sara, Rivka and Malca Lea, the fulcrum of my life, and, dulcis in fundo, to my husband David Zvi for his closeness, his attention, and for the serenity of our life together.

ABBREVIATIONS IAA CIIP RIC I RIC II RPC

ABSA AIHV

Israel Antiquities Authority Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae: a Multi-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad Sutherland, C. Humphrey V. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 1, From 31 B.C. to A.D. 69 (revised edition) (London: Spink, 1984) Mattingly, Harold and Sydenham, Edward A. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 2, Vespasian to Hadrian (London: Spink & Son, 1968) Amandry, Michel and Burnett, Andrew. Roman Provincial Coinage (London: British Museum Press, 2015)

The Annual of the British School at Athens Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJSL The American Journal of Semitic Languages AMN Acta Musei Napocensis ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt AntAfr Antiquité africaines ARAHA Annual Report of the American Historical Association Arheoloski Vestnik Arheoloski Vestnik. Acta Archaeologica Arion Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics AUWA Acta Uuniversitatis Wratislaviensis, Antiquitas BAM Bulletin d’archéologie marocaine BArch.R Biblical Archaeological Review BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique BHAC Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium Bibl.R Bible Review CAH The Cambridge Ancient History CCG Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz

XII CH CHJ CJ Cogito CPh CQ CRAI CT EIAHGS GRBS Hakirah Hesperia HSPh HThR IASH IEJ ILR IMSA INJ INR JANES JAOS JHS JQR JRA JRH JRS JSJ JSQ JSRS Nova Religio NCHB PBSR

ABBREVIATIONS

Church History The Cambridge History of Judaism The Classical Journal Cogito. Multidisciplinary Research Journal Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Les Cahiers de Tunisie Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Hakirah: the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Israel Exploration Journal Israel Law Review Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Research Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society The Journal of Hellenic Studies The Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Jewish Studies Quarterly Judaea and Samaria Research Studies Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions The New Cambridge History of the Bible Papers of the British School at Rome

ABBREVIATIONS

PEQ PJBR PMHS RBi REJ RHR SBAW SBLSP SCI Segula SH SPA TA TS ZNTW ZPE

XIII

Palestine Exploration Quarterly Polish Journal of Biblical Research Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society Revue Biblique Revue des études juives Revue de l’histoire des religions Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Scripta Classica Israelica Segula: the Jewish Journey through History Scripta Hierosolymitana Studia Philonica Annual Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Theological Studies Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1.

Reconstruction of the inscription welcoming Hadrian to Jerusalem. CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 715 (the left-hand side) and IAA 2014-2306 (the right-hand side). Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 58. Photo: The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Elie Posner. With the permission of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, of the Israel Antiquities Authority and of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem .................................................... Fig. 2. The Madaba Map ............................................................... Fig. 3. Imperial roads to and from Aelia Capitolina. Photo Natalya Zak-Danit Levi. Weksler-Bdolah (2019), 85. The map is based on the Ordinance Survey of Western Palestine (1880), Sheet 17. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority ........ Fig. 4. Temple with two columns enclosing helmeted Minerva standing with spear, Jupiter seated and Juno standing with scepter. Meshorer (1989), 70-71, no. 1. RPC III, 1, no. 3963. CNG e-Auction 469, Lot: 269. With the permission of CNG..... Fig. 5. Sculpture found at the foot of the Temple Mount. PelegBarkat (2011), 306. Sculpture no. 1. With the permission of the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ............................................................................. Fig. 6. The foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Meshorer (1989), 70-71, no. 2. CNG Auction 97, 17 September 2014, Lot: 531. With the permission of CNG ............................................. Fig. 7. The foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Design by Tameanko (1999), 21. Courtesy of The Shekel .................................... Fig. 8. Plan of the El-Jai cave. Design by Eshel-Zissu (2002), 169. Courtesy of the Israel Numismatic Journal ......................... Fig. 9. The excavation site in the Old City of Jerusalem. WekslerBdolah (2014a), 39. Photo: Natalya Zak. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority ................................................. Fig. 10. Eastern Cardo, view to the northwest. Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2017), 19. Photo: S. Weksler-Bdolah. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. ................................................ Fig. 11. General view of the Roman Eastern Cardo and the Western Wall Plaza at the end of excavation (2009), looking northeast.

7 8

11

14

16

27 27 28

32

33

XVI

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 14.

Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17.

Fig. 18.

Fig. 19. Fig. 20.

Fig. 21.

Fig. 22.

LIST OF FIGURES

Weksler Bdolah and Onn (2019), 159. Photo: S. WekslerBdolah. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority .......... General view of the Roman Eastern Cardo at the end of excavation (2009), looking south: Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 161. Photo: S. Weksler-Bdolah. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority........................................................... Accumulation of Roman dump inside quarry L8170, against the foundation of Wall 804. Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2017), 16. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority ............................................................................. Limestone military bread stamp of the Roman Legion. Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 164. Photo Clara Amit. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority ........................ The Shu’afat site. Katsnelson (2009), 164, fig. 2. Aerial photo. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority ........................ Shu’afat hypocaust of the bathhouse. Photo Tsila Sagiv. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority ........................ Statue of Hadrian from Hierapytna, Crete. Photo: Alinari, Fratelli. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, 585, inv. No. 50. With the permission of Alinari Archives, Florence .............. Eastern Victory-type breastplate on Hadrian’s statue from Knossos. Gergel (2004), 380, fig. 19, 3, c. Archaeological Museum of Herakleion. Inv. no. ΑΜΗ Γ 5. Courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion – Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sport – Hellenic Organization of Cultural Resources Development and courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens .................. Lusius Quietus on the Column of Trajan, Rome................ Trajan. Sepphoris. Obv. TRAIANOS AVTOKRATWR EDOKEN. Rev. SEPFW-RHNWN. Meshorer (2013), 68, no. 1. RPC III, 1, no. 3936. CNG 118, September 13, 2021, Lot: 872. Courtesy of CNG................................................ Hadrian. Tiberias. Temple with four columns enclosing Zeus seated, with patera and scepter. Kindler (1961), 88, no. 7b. RPC III, 1, no. 3932. CNG The Coin Shop 872672. Courtesy of CNG................................................................ Antoninus Pius. Sepphoris. renamed Diocaesarea. CNG Triton XXV – Session 5 January 25, 2022, Lot: 5303. Courtesy of CNG................................................................

34

35

36

37 78 79

97

99 101

113

117

122

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 23. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 893. CNG Feature Auction 114, Lot: 871. Courtesy of CNG ................................................................................... Fig. 24. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 893. Design by Tameanko (1999), 23. Courtesy of The Shekel .......................................................................... Fig. 25. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 890. Design by Tameanko (1999), 22. Courtesy of The Shekel .......................................................................... Fig. 26. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 894. Design by Tameanko (1999), 22. Courtesy of The Shekel .......................................................................... Fig. 27. Hadrian. Sestertius. A combination of restitutor-type (in design) and adventus-type (legenda). Museum of Naples. Catalogo Fiorelli, no. 8405. Photo: Museum. With the permission of the Ministero della Cultura – Museo Archaeologico Nazionale di Napoli ............................................................................. Fig. 28. Hadrian. Sestertius. A combination of restitutor-type (in design) and adventus-type (legenda). S. Moussaieff Collection. The New York Sale, Auction 45, Lot: 208. Courtesy of the Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc................. Fig. 29. Hadrian. Sestertius. RESTITVTORI ORBIS TERRARUM. RIC II, 416, no. 594 and 418, no. 603. CNG eAuction 298. Lot: 157. Courtesy of CNG................................................ Fig. 30. Hadrian. Sestertius. RESTITVTORI ORBIS TERRARUM. Design by Rosemary Lehan in Kreitzer (1996), 150, fig. 2. Courtesy of Sheffield Academic Press, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ............................................................ Fig. 31. Hadrian. Sestertius. RESTITVTORI ITALIAE. RIC II, 466, no. 956. CNG Feature Auction 67. Lot: 1491, September 22, 2004. Courtesy of CNG ............................................... Fig. 32. Hadrian. Denarius. RESTITVTORI AFRICAE. RIC II, 377, no. 322. CNG eAuction 243. Lot: 347. Courtesy of CNG Fig. 33. Hadrian. AR Denarius. RESTITVTORI GALLIAE. RIC II, 465, no. 950. CNG Feature Auction 114. Lot: 864. Courtesy of CNG ........................................................................ Fig. 34. Hadrian. AR Denarius. RESTITVTORI HISPANIAE. RIC II, 465, no. 952. CNG eAuction 243. Lot: 348. Courtesy of CNG ...................................................................................

XVII

126

127

127

128

131

131

137

137

138 139

140

140

INTRODUCTION During the reign of Emperor Hadrian, Jerusalem, the holy city of the Jews, disappeared, and in its place, a Roman colony, called Aelia Capitolina, was established. The reasons to be found at the background of such a drastic measure have aroused much interest in contemporary scholarship, the more so since Hadrian is often regarded as one of Rome’s most able and open-minded rulers. Unfortunately, the literary sources dealing with the subject contradict each other regarding the reasons underlying Hadrian’s decision and its general context, but many queries may now be resolved thanks to the findings of the recent archaeological excavations carried out in the Old City of Jerusalem on the spot where Aelia Capitolina once stood. The time has come, therefore, to attempt a fresh evaluation of the sources and of their interpretations. Let us start with the facts about which a general consensus is found. THE EVIDENCE OF THE NUMISMATIC AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTIMONIES The first inhabitants of Aelia Capitolina were the veterans of the legio X Fretensis, as is evinced by the presence of the vexillum of the legio X Fretensis which appears on the coins representing the scene of the foundation of the colony.1 As had happened sixty years earlier at Caesarea, where Vespasian probably settled veterans in the new colony Prima Flavia Augusta Caesariensis,2 so at Aelia Capitolina, too, the inhabitants of the new colony were veterans, many of whom were

1  See Dabrowa (2000), 324; idem (2001), 79 and idem (2004), 403-404. Later, by the time of Marcus Aurelius, the population of Aelia Capitolina also included the veterans of the legio VI Ferrata. 2  Cotton and Eck (2002), 383-384.

2

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

of eastern origin.3 The population of the new colony also included the legionaries whose marriages favoured their settlement outside the camp, and the canabae of the legion, namely, the personnel of the civil administration, military dependants and civilian contractors who serviced the base and needed housing; traders, artisans, sellers of food and drink, prostitutes, and also unofficial wives of soldiers and their children.4 Aelia Capitolina appears to have been a standard colonia civium Romanorum, which enjoyed the status usually granted to the cities of the veterans, but presumably not the Ius Italicum,5 and its magistrates, it may be assumed, were the usual ones, namely, the duumviri, the aediles, the quaestores and the quinquennales.6 Of course, the official language was Latin,7 and its ordo decurionum, the council of the town, is mentioned in an inscription found on a statue of Antoninus Pius.8 From the source material the impression arises that the colony looked like a typical Roman enclave, a ‘Latin island,’9 as were Berytus and Caesarea,10 with a population estimated to have numbered between four and fifteen thousand people.11 Its boundaries appear to 3  An eastern origin is suggested by the nomenclature of the inscriptions found in loco and by imported burial practices like cremation, burial with jewels and goldembroidered clothing, and the representation of pagan deities on the lead sarcophagi, some of which were made in a Jerusalem workshop. See Belayche (2001), 129-130. On the places where graves were found with Latin inscriptions mentioning veterans of the colony, see Eck (2019), 133-134. 4  The documents pertaining to Aelia Capitolina consist of a small number of inscriptions. See Bernini (2019), 557-562 and Eck (2019), 129-139. 5  See Zahrnt (1991), 482; Sartre (2005), 136; Isaac (2010), 22, note 99 and Weikert (2016), 275. 6  See Millar (2006), 190. 7  Seligman (2017), 115, observes that the predominance of Latin in a Greekspeaking eastern province suggests that Aelia Capitolina failed to draw colonists from the local Greek-speaking pagan population. 8  See Eck (2019), 136, notes 42 and 44. 9  Belayche (2001), 120. 10  See Cotton and Eck (2002), 382-383. 11  According to Belayche (2001), 110 and to Sartre (2005), 155, the population may have amounted to between 10,000 and 15,000, while Geva (2014), 149 suggests that they were no more than 4000. Even this estimate, Seligman (2017), 116, observes, may be high. His view is rather extreme: “Roman Jerusalem,” he writes, “had no greater population than did a large village. It was lined with magnificent

INTRODUCTION

3

reflect the former eleven Judaean toparchies, even if its territorial extension is difficult to define;12 according to Eck, all the archaeological remains show that they are in the radius of ten kilometres around the center of the colony.13 Water was brought in by the ‘high-level’ aqueduct, built or reconstructed by the legion,14 and much of the material used in the new construction came from a brick and tile factory operated by the Tenth Fretensis Legion, the remains of which were discovered in the area of Binyanei Ha’uma, two Roman miles west of Aelia Capitolina.15 It is difficult to ascertain how much of the building development of the colony occurred in Hadrian’s time since archaeological remains are difficult to date with precision, and the testimony of the Byzantine sources is difficult to evaluate, as Isaac points out: we do not have to believe that a Byzantine author would know how much of Aelia Capitolina was actually built in Hadrian’s time. The earliest witness, the pilgrim from Bordeaux, visited the town in 333, after the activities of Constantine. The only Roman structures he mentions are two imperial statues (statuae duae Hadriani) on the Temple Mount, four porches at the pool of Siloa, and, of course, Constantine’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is significant that Dio does not mention any urban development at Jerusalem, although he mentions Hadrian’s initiative elsewhere.16

Recent archaeological excavations reveal that the main city entrance was a monumental three-bayed arch, now known as the Damascus streets but they led to empty stores and few houses. … Like a mouse with a megaphone, Aelia Capitolina made more noise than actual substance.” 12  See Zissu, Klein and Kloner (2014), 219-223. Isaac (2017), 343, calls it a small settlement. On its rural hinterland, see Kloner, Klein and Zissu (2017), 134-136. 13  Eck (2019), 135-136. 14  Stiebel (1999), 76-77. 15  The remains comprise an industrial workshop of the Roman Tenth Legion where roof tiles, bricks and pottery vessels were manufactured. In the area west of that where the kilns were located, a row of rooms was excavated that were part of a large building with a wide opening. This may have been part of army barracks of the men/soldiers operating this production center. The Romans chose the site evidently because it had access to raw material for pottery making and was well served by routes of transportation. See Arubas and Goldfus (1995), 107 and Goldfus and Arubas (2019), 185, 193-194. The workshop seems to have started operating in the period between 70 and 135. See Magness (2005), 104. 16  Isaac (1992), 353.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

4

Gate, which may have been known as the Porta Neapolitana, which opened onto a paved court with a freestanding column.17 This ensemble, originally constructed by Herod Agrippa, was rebuilt and rededicated by the colony’s new decurions.18 Remains have been found of a semi-circular square, of a main street running south from there, the ‘Cardo Maximus,’ and of another one, which ran first south-east and then south. Perpendicular streets crossed these north-south streets at right angles. The present David Street and Street of the Chain probably represent another main street usually called the ‘Decumanus Maximus,’ and there was a forum located in the area of the present day Muristan, with a temple of Aphrodite and a basilica, adjacent to and west of the main street,19 while a second forum appears to have been built in the eastern part of the Old City, north of the Temple Mount. There is no evidence of a wall until the beginning or even toward the end of the fourth century,20 and one may wonder whether the reason may be the same one invoked by Rakob in the case of the colony settled by Augustus at Carthage, where the lack of a wall is taken to reflect peaceful living conditions in which the inhabitants did not have to consider the possibility of attack.21 This would not be surprising, since Aelia Capitolina was neighbor to the camp of the Tenth Legion,22 whose mission was to keep guard over the eastern edges of the Roman Empire and to maintain order in a province where, following Roman policy of agrarian oppression, socio-economic robbery was endemic.23 At least two statues stood on the Temple Mount.24 One was that of Hadrian, perhaps an equestrian one, and the other is variously identified by the literary sources as that of Gaius or of Titus,25 of

17

 Seligman (2017), 108.  See Boatwright (2000), 200. 19  According to Boatwright (2000), 201, the forum was situated in what is now the environs of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Muristan compound. 20  Seligman (2017), 109. 21  Rakob (2000), 75-76. 22  On the separation between the legion and the colony, see Eck (2019), 131. 23  See Isaac (1992), 83-85 and idem (1998f), 122-151. 24  Eliav (2008), 614-616. 25  See the sources quoted by Bowersock (1980), 141, note 40. 18

INTRODUCTION

5

Antoninus26 or of Jupiter.27 Other statues were erected in the colony, which were dedicated to Vespasian and Titus and, later, to the commander of the Tenth Legion, M. Iunius Maximus.28 The column bases where the inscriptions were found were originally surmounted by statues, which, Eck suggests, may have stood inside the encampment of the legion itself, perhaps in the praetorium, the official seat of the senatorial commander of the unit.29 Byzantine sources tell us that at some point Aelia Capitolina had two public baths, a nymphaeum of four porticoes, a monumental gate of twelve entrances, and a quadrangular esplanade.30 A circus, too, seems to have existed, for chariot racing and arena spectacles, whose remains, however, have yet not been found,31 and a theatre, of which two slabs were found beneath Wilson’s Arch,32 part of a group of eleven similar stones, which have been identified as theater seats, crossed by an ascending staircase.33 The colony had colonnaded streets, public squares, triumphal arches and freestanding city gates marking its limits.34 Over all, Boatwright points out, what remains of Colonia Aelia Capitolina avows its Romanness, its adherence to the emperor and the imperial house, which could not be announced more dramatically than on the city’s gates, some of which glorified the imperial house in their inscriptions. On the front of the gate that led to Bethlehem,35 a boar was sculpted 26

 Belayche (2001), 134, note 206 and 140, note 251.  See Isaac (1992), 353, note 117. 28  See Eck (2005), 156; idem (2008), 283; idem (2010), 219-222; idem (2015), 20; Mazar (2011), 5-6; Eck (2014b), 98-101 and idem (2015), 20. 29  See Eck (2008), 283. At Caesarea, too, several inscribed bases attest to the presence of imperial statues in the praetorium. See Isaac (2011), 27. 30  See Boatwright (2000), 201-202; Magness (2000), 334; Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 110-116. 31  See Patrich (2002), 175-176. 32  Uziel, Lieberman, Solomon (2017), 258-259. 33  CIIP I, 2 (2012), 72-74, no. 771. Di Segni (CIIP I, 2 [2012], 74) suggests that these seats were reserved for the inhabitants of a certain quarter: either this quarter was named after an amphodarch called Dionysius, either the city quarters, or some of them, were named after deities. 34  See Mazor (2007a), 116-124 and Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 60-65 on the city gates. 35  On the location of this gate, possibly at some distance from the Ottoman-era Jaffa Gate, see Mazor (2017), 78. See also pp. 79-81 for other city gates of Aelia Capitolina. 27

6

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

in marble, as we learn from the Chronicle of Eusebius, who observes that this was meant to denote “that the Jews were subject to Roman authority.”36 The boar, along with the bull, the dolphin and the galley, was one of the traditional emblems of the legio X Fretensis, and the one more often than the others attested in Jerusalem,37 but to the Jews, it signified uncleanliness, which was the point of Eusebius’ comment. If the people who carved the boar on this gate were aware of its significance for the Jews, Boatwright may be correct in asserting that “colonia Aelia Capitolina reaffirmed Rome’s military might and humiliated the provincials who had dared to oppose it.”38 It was a Roman city built for Romans, which according to the usual procedure in the Roman world, was embellished by statues and by temples dedicated to Greek and Roman gods and goddesses.39 As was in the case of the other military colony founded by Hadrian in Pannonia, Colonia Aelia Mursa, Aelia Capitolina, too, did not involve the local population in any constructive way.40 As Millar points out, even though we cannot be certain how completely the original expulsions mentioned by Eusebius were carried out, or whether exclusion could ever have been rigorously enforced, the essential fact is that

36  Significans Romanae potestati subiacere Iudaeos: Die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. Rudolf Helm, 2nd ed. Eusebius Werke VII = GCS 47 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956), 201. 37  On this symbol, see Deines (2011), 207-212. The boar is often depicted on the brick stamps used by the legion. See Adler (2011), 328. Its presence on the front of a gate of Aelia Capitolina indicates that the gate and its decoration antedate the departure of the legion from Jerusalem, which happened at the end of the third century. See Isaac (2010), 22. 38  Boatwright (2000), 202. 39  On the imperial statuary which often embellished the Capitolia at Brescia, at Gabii, and at Ferentium, see Boatwright (2001), 201. On the temple of Venus, see Hunt (1982), 2 and Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 123-125. Concerning the exclusively Greco-Roman pantheon of Aelia Capitolina, which included Jupiter Capitolinus, Venus, Mars, Bacchus, Fortuna, the Dioscuri, and the suckling she-wolf – the same pantheon which is also found at Sebaste/Samaria – see Belayche (1999), 287-348 and Zissu, Klein, Kloner (2014), 221. According to Friedheim (2007), 125-152, these two religious centers dissociated themselves from the Palestinian paganism, which was profoundly characterized by the syncretistic merger of the Greek and Roman religions with ancient Phoenician and Syrian cults. On the religious life of Aelia Capitolina in later times, see also Dabrowa [2009] (2020b), 94. 40  See Zahrnt (1991), 470-471 and Boatwright (2001), 198.

INTRODUCTION

7

in the area round Jerusalem a gentile population had replaced the Jewish one.41 Three inscriptions mention buildings erected in honor of Hadrian. One of them is attested to by an inscription, the left-hand side of which was published by C. Clermont-Ganneau in 1903, while the right-hand side was discovered, some 300 meters north of the Damascus Gate, during the excavations carried out in 2014 by Rina Avner and Roi Greenwald on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority.42

Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the inscription welcoming Hadrian to Jerusalem. CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 715 (the left-hand side) and IAA 2014-2306 (the right-hand side). Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 58. Photo: The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Elie Posner.

The combined inscription, 2.75 meters long and 1.09 meters high, mentions a non-specified building erected in honor of Hadrian by the Tenth Legion Fretensis during his third consulate and fourteenth tribunicia potestas,43 namely, sometime between December 10, 129 and December 9, 130,44 where the date probably commemorates the 41

 Millar (1993), 349.  CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 715 (the left-hand side) and IAA 2014-2306 (the righthand side). The combined inscription appears in Avner, Greenwald, Ecker and Cotton (2014), 58 (Hebrew) and in Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 59-67. 43  Avner, Greenwald, Ecker, Cotton (2014), 100. In the last line of the inscription, an unskilled hand added a graffito which must be the end of the honorary title ‘Antoniniana,’ which the legion received sometime between 211 and 222. See Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 62, note 5. 44  See Ritti (2017), 386. 42

8

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

visit of Hadrian in loco and not the completion of the building. Eck points out that the form and the size of the stone suggest that the inscription may have been part of an arch with the statue of Hadrian on top erected by the city council of the newly founded Roman colony over the road leading to the city, as was the case in Gerasa at about the same time. This however is not certain since there is only a single example of an arch dedicated by a legion across the entire Roman Empire, at Dura Europos, and it is also possible that the inscription was fixed to the large base of a column, on which stood a statue of Hadrian. In fact, a monumental column appears in the Madaba Map, adorning the piazza south of the Damascus Gate.45

Fig. 2. The Madaba Map (6th century CE) has the Cardo Maximus, the town’s main street, beginning at the northern gate (today’s Damascus Gate).

According to Ecker and Cotton, the monument bearing this inscription is likely to have stood in the legionary campus and there, too, 45  Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 60. The possibility should also be mentioned, that the inscription may have been inscribed on the gate in the ‘Third Wall’: see Gibson and Nagorsky (2016), 163*.

INTRODUCTION

9

may have been located the monument mentioned in another inscription found nearby, which was commissioned by a freedman in honor of an emperor, the remains of whose name and the titulature in lines 1 and 2 seem to point to Hadrian, and was built by the detachments of at least five legions, among which were the legio X Fretensis and the legio XII Fulminata.46 The assumption that the two inscriptions may originate from the same monument is rejected by Ecker since the dedicators are different. It is far more probable, he points out, that these inscriptions originate from two separate buildings or monuments: free standing arches, gates, large statue bases of an equestrian statue of the emperor, or a commemorative column. While it is impossible to know to which buildings these inscriptions belonged, it is reasonable to imagine that these monuments were erected within some sort of space that connected them: a forum, a large piazza in front of or within the city gate, or even a temenos. Furthermore, Ecker argues, the space these monuments shared seem to have belonged to the legion who erected them, not to a colony or any other civic body. “Monuments of such size could be found in one of two military loci: inside a large army camp or in the training ground, the campus. There is no archaeological indication that the area north of the Damascus Gate served as the camp of the tenth legion, this area did not even yield stamped legionary tiles, hundreds of which were discovered within the current day area of the Old City of Jerusalem. The latter, a campus, then, is the more suitable explanation for the context of these inscriptions and the monuments which they adorned.”47

Another Latin building inscription with the name of Hadrian was found during the excavations undertaken in the vast tract of ground situated east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and may have belonged, too, to an arch or to a gate, but no precise identification is possible because the inscription is extremely fragmentary.48 Relying on the inscriptions mentioned above, on the architectural remains and on a colossal head found in 1873 north of the ‘Tomb of 46  CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 717. See Eck’s observations on p. 17. See also Eck (2009), 224, no. 8; Mazor (2017), 79-81; Ecker (2019), 112-113. 47  Ecker (2019), 114. 48  CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 716.

10

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

the Kings’ and now in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, which has been identified as that of the emperor Hadrian, the suggestion has been made that a triumphal arch stood at the site, built in honor of the emperor on the main route to Caesarea.49 Quite a few monumental arches bearing statues of Roman emperors and Latin inscriptions, therefore, must have dominated and adorned the public space of Aelia Capitolina, giving it a typically Roman aspect.50 Like Caesarea Maritima, this was a Roman enclave in Judaea, and nothing but ruins had remained of Jerusalem as the holy city of the Jews.51 There is no doubt that the new colony completely changed the local landscape. As was the case of the Roman colony established by Augustus at Carthage,52 and that of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa,53 the Romans dismantled and removed almost everything that still remained standing in Jerusalem, with a few exceptions.54 In later times, six roads led to and from Aelia Capitolina: north, to Neapolis (Shechem), east to Jericho, south to Hebron, southwest to Eleutheropolis (Beit Guvrin), west to Diospolis (Lod) via Emmaus and northwest to Diospolis (Lod) via Beth Horon – for the Romans considered the well-organized road network as a basic element of proper administration and rule.55 49  Pelg-Barkat (2011), 313. On the problematic identification of this head, however, see Gibson and Nagorsky (2016), 156* and 165*. 50  Mazor (2017), 75-77. An arch dedicated to an emperor whose name is not preserved is attested to by an inscription found on the Temple Mount: CIIP I, 2 (2012), 20-22, no. 720. 51  Cotton and Eck (2009), 114*-115*. Eliav (2003), 274 points out that the limits of Aelia Capitolina were marked by monumental, triumphal-style, entrance structures: the Damascus Gate to the north, the Ecce Homo arch to the east, most probably also a gate to the west near the site of the present-day Jaffa Gate and perhaps a southern gate as well. On the function of honorific arches at Rome, which were statue bases of mammoth dimensions, see Eck (2008), 278. 52  Rakob (2000), 77, observes that in the case of Carthage, too, adaptation to local topography was sacrificed for the sake of a regular city plane. 53  At Sarmizegetusa, too, the place was dismantled and the stones were used to build a fortified camp. See Strobel (2010), 277. 54  These exceptions included the wall of the Temple Mount and the Phasael tower. On other possible buildings, see Broshi (1977), 133. 55  Weksler-Bdolah (2019a), 83.

INTRODUCTION

11

Fig. 3. Imperial roads to and from Aelia Capitolina. Photo Natalya Zak-Danit Levi. Weksler-Bdolah (2019), 85. The map is based on the Ordinance Survey of Western Palestine (1880), Sheet 17.

Cemeteries were located outside the city.56 Tombs dating from the middle second to early fourth century CE were discovered next to St. George Church, along Salah ed-Din Street, the Nablus road and the Tombs of the Kings, in the grounds of the Rockefeller Museum and along the former line of the Third Wall.57 There seems to have 56

 See Weksler-Bdolah (2019), 83 and (2020), 151-168.  See the sources discussed by Avni (2017), 124-126.

57

12

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

been no separation between military and civilian entombments, the two populations being mixed, and the absence of Jewish or early Christian ornamentation and relics in the tombs confirms what we already knew, namely, that these communities were not present among the population of Aelia Capitolina. Support for a non-local origin of the population is provided by a number of rare finds among the grave goods, including miniature lead objects produced in northern England.58 So far so good. These are facts on which consensus is found in contemporary scholarship. Issues are also to be found, however, where scholarly views differ. POINTS AT ISSUE The new colony was called Aelia from Aelius, Hadrian’s nomen gentilicium, and Capitolina from the Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, which held a central place in the Roman public religion.59 The name honored at one and the same time the emperor by commemorating his gens, and Jupiter Capitolinus, a very Roman, traditional god and yet not alien to the Greek mind, which honored him under the name of Zeus.60 It is often argued that, in fact, both elements of the name Aelia Capitolina were meant to refer to Hadrian himself, who was honored as ‘Olympios’ in the eastern provinces. Isaac points out that the latter is the Latin equivalent of Olympios, Hadrian’s favourite epithet, Latin because a Roman colony ought to have a Roman name. In naming Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina he dedicated the city to himself as identified with the Capitoline Jupiter.61 58  See Avni (2005), 387-388; Avni and Adawi (2015), 65-67 and Avni (2017), 123-130. On the examination of the human skeleton remains recovered from this cemetery see Nagar (2015), 73-79. 59  The impressive number of the Capitoline Triad temples erected in different places in Africa, Germania Superior and Dalmatia, Spain, Gaul, the Danube frontier and the Illyrian provinces, indicates the popularity of the cult, especially within the army. See Barton (1982), 259-342. 60  This may be the reason why apparently Hadrian gave this god a role in the unification of the empire. See Thornton (1975), 443-444. See also below, 166, note 8. 61  Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 107, note 98. See also Zahrnt (1991), 479, note 43 and Boatwright (2000), 200, note 153

INTRODUCTION

13

It may be safely assumed that, from the Roman point of view, the choice of this name had nothing to do with the people who lived in the country, and in the area of the Decapolis, too, east of the Jordan River, a town had been founded under Nerva or Trajan, named Capitolias.62 From a Jewish point of view, however, the new name may have been perceived in a completely different way. No source has survived pertaining to the reaction of the Judaean Jews at the time, but we know that idolatry was from most ancient times considered a violation of the basic tenets of the Jewish tradition, and we also know that several times in the past, Jews had displayed a particular sensitivity in this area. Scholars therefore are found, who assume that the name of the new colony, which acknowledged the presence and the power of a pagan god, may well have been negatively perceived,63 and argue that Hadrian’s choice had been a calculated one, meant to offend the Jewish divinity emphasizing that now Jupiter Capitolinus dwelt in Jerusalem as he did on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.64 The choice of this name, it has been argued, was tactless and betrayed a total failure to appreciate Jewish feelings regarding Jerusalem.65 The more so, since the name Aelia Capitolina may have reminded them of what had happened several generation before, when Vespasian had allocated the funds of the Fiscus Judaicus, the tax imposed on all the Jews living in the Roman world after the defeat of Judaean Jews in 70, for the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome, also known as the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,66 which had been destroyed by fire in 69.67 This view, however, may be questionable, since it is doubtful whether Hadrian was aware of how Vespasian had used the money of the Fiscus Judaicus sixty years earlier, and, in fact, one may also wonder whether the Jews themselves had any idea of the employment of the funds of the tax which they were paying in their own time, much less so several generations earlier.68 62

 Weikert (2016), 279.  Zissu (2016), 388. 64  Thornton (1975), 456; Mildenberg (1984), 107; Golan (1986), 238. 65  Smallwood (1976), 433-434; Tsafrir (2003), 36, too, claims that the pagan name given to the colony was one of Hadrian’s measures meant to punish the Jews. 66  See Horbury (2014), 282. 67  Tucci (2006), 386. 68  Weikert (2016), 279, too, has some reservations in this regard, albeit for different reasons. 63

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

14

Another subject of disagreement pertains to the location of one of the major edifices of the colony, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, which has been identified with that which appears on a coin issued by the colony, where a two-column façade with a triangular gable is depicted, with Jupiter in the center resting on a scepter, and Juno and Minerva standing at his sides.69

Fig. 4. Temple with two columns enclosing helmeted Minerva standing with spear, Jupiter seated and Juno standing with scepter. Meshorer (1989), 70-71, no. 1. RPC III, 1, no. 3963. CNG e-Auction 469, Lot: 269.

The place where the temple stood is disputed. The testimony of Dio, at Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and es tòn toû naoû toû theoû tópon he raised a new temple to Jupiter,70

has been interpreted in different ways. Eliav claims that this passage does not reflect the original text of Dio but a later rewording by Xiphilinus,71 concluding that the temple of Jupiter did not stand on the Temple Mount but on another spot of Aelia Capitolina, most probably in the area of the present-day Christian quarter, perhaps on 69

 Dabrowa [2009] (2020b), 93; Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 116-117.  69, 12, 1. 71  See below, 46-47. 70

INTRODUCTION

15

Golgotha, where later the Holy Sepulcher was built.72 This conclusion is shared by most scholars,73 even if the emendation of the text of Dio does not seem necessary, since, as Bowersock and Isaac point out, this is not classical but post-classical Greek, where the expression es tòn toû naoû toû theoû tópon does not mean ‘on the place of the temple of the (Jewish) God,’ namely, ‘on the site of’, but rather ‘instead of’.74 Other scholars, however, contend that the temple of Jupiter did probably stand on the Temple Mount,75 which would not be surprising since in Roman colonies temples were often erected on the site where local temples had stood.76 Flusin mentions two late Byzantine accounts preserved in Georgian which mention in passing a place called ‘Capitol’ situated on the Temple Mount,77 and Newman, too, arrives at the conclusion that the temple of Jupiter stood on the Temple Mount, relying on a passage of Sulpicius Severus, which attributes to Hadrian the establishment of a pagan cult or cults on the Temple Mount, and on one of the text branches of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, which alludes to contemporary gentile idolatry on the site of the Temple.78 The existence of a non-identified temple or a shrine on the Temple Mount is attested to by the archaeological excavations. A sculpture was found at the foot of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, which represents a female figure, probably a goddess, standing 72

 Eliav (1997), 133, 142 and idem (2003), 275.  Bowersock (1980), 137, 141; Murphy-O’Connor (1994), 407-415; MurphyO’Connor (1997), 22-29; Belayche (1997), 387-413; Boatwright (2000), 201; Belayche (2001), 117 and 133; Eliav (2003), 264-266, 275; Eliav (2005), 85-91; Sartre (2005), 129; Bazzana (2010), 89-90; Horbury (2014), 407; Mor (2016), 125-126; Cabaret (2020), 288-294 (non vidi). 74  Bowersock (1980), 137; Isaac (2010), 20. 75  Gregorovius (1883), 501; Beaujeu (1955), 262; Kadman (1956), 23; Geva (1993), 758; See also Weksler-Bdolah (2015), 134; eadem (2017a), 93; eadem (2020), 38. Tsafrir (2009), 83, on the other hand, observes that the Temple Mount may have been used as an open cult place, perhaps connected with the Roman rulercult, and that a built temple (aedes) was erected on the site, probably in the center of the Esplanade, near the site of the ruined Jewish Temple. 76  At Colonia Concordia Iulia Carthago, for example, the Roman colony established by Augustus at Carthage, a large Roman temple was probably located on the site of its Punic predecessor. See Rakob (2000), 79. 77  Flusin (1992), 17-31. See also Tsafrir (2009), 82. 78  Newman (2014), 39-40. 73

16

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

on a low base bearing a Greek dedicatory inscription, which reads “Valeria Aemiliana dedicated [the statue] following a vow.”79

Fig. 5. Sculpture found at the foot of the Temple Mount. Peleg-Barkat (2011), 306. Sculpture no. 1.

The terminology used in the inscription indicates that the statue was erected in a sanctified location, which means that a shrine or a temple stood nearby. A passage of Hippolytus mentioning the ‘abomination of desolation’ is often interpreted as indicating the 79  Peleg-Barkat (2011), 305, no. 1 = CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 710. On the basis of the form of the letters, the inscription is dated to the second or third centuries CE, while the statue is similar in technique and style to examples dated to the third century CE. See Peleg-Barkat (2011), 305-307.

INTRODUCTION

17

existence of the emperor cult on the Temple Mount,80 and the presence of an aedes standing on the site of what had been the Jewish Temple is also mentioned in the fourth century by the Pilgrim of Burdigala (Bordeaux), if it did not refer to a part of the ruined Jewish Temple or to a later shrine or precint.81 Unfortunately, it is impossible to draw definite conclusions, since the existence of a temple, or shrine, standing on the Temple Mount does not imply that it may be identified with the temple of Jupiter mentioned by Dio. Another point on which scholars’ views differ is the location of the camp of the Legio X Fretensis. The only firm point is that the legion had been established in Jerusalem since the end of the Great War,82 but the exact spot is still hotly disputed. Against the opinion of Bar and Seligman, who suggest that the camp was situated in what is now the Christian quarter of the Old City, namely, that Aelia Capitolina itself was the legionary camp and that the legionary soldiers were simply billeted inside the buildings,83 many scholars contend that the camp was from the beginning placed in the area of the southwestern hill, namely, the Upper City of the Second Temple Period, including the areas of the Armenian and Jewish quarters within the Old City, as well as Mount Zion outside the Ottoman walls.84 According to Weksler-Bdolah, a narrow bridge connected the camp of the legion and the Temple Mount, which allowed the soldiers to carry out regular patrols of the Temple Mount, perhaps establishing a military observation post somewhere on the site.85 A different view is held by Benjamin Mazar in the seventies of the last century86 and recently by his granddaughter Eilat, who argue that 80  Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 37-38, note 64 and 123. On the emperor cult on the Temple Mount, see also Friedheim (2000), 204-206. 81  See Tsafrir (2009), 80, and Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 117. 82  See Dabrowa (1993), 14, note 27 and Mor (2016), 29, 44-47. 83  Bar (1993), 37-56; Bar (1998), 8-19; Seligman (2017), 114. 84  Geva (1993), 758-759; idem (1994), 181-186; Tsafrir (1999), 115-166; Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 19-32 and 59, figure 24; Cabaret (2020), 221-241. 85  Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 6, note 26 and 22-23. See also pp. 26-32 on the possible identification of the fortification of the camp and related structures and pp. 36-37 on the bridge. On the possible location of the Training Ground (Campus) of the legion, see Ecker (2019), 109-117. 86  In view of the presence of building remains and finds on the Temple Mount, forty years ago Benjamin Mazar (1971), 22, argued that substantial settlement activity by the Tenth Legion took place on the site.

18

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

by the time Aelia Capitolina was established or at the beginning of the Bar Kokhba War,87 the camp of the Legio X Fretensis was moved by Hadrian from its location on the Western Hill to the Temple Mount enclosure, where it encompassed also the area at the foot of its southwestern corner.88 The annexation of this area below the Temple Mount to the Tenth Legion camp on the Temple Mount had obvious strategic advantage and prevented the detachment of the Temple Mount from its environs. By asserting control of the focal point of Jerusalem could Hadrian be assured of long-term control of the city. The two sections of the camp – on top of the Temple Mount and at the foot of its south-western corner – may have functioned as one unit. Signs of the presence of the Tenth Legion in the area below the Temple Mount have been discovered during archaeological excavations. Remains were found of a bathhouse of the row type, a simple and relatively early type quite common in Roman military bathhouses, which included a palaestra, a frigidarium, a tepidarium, and a caldarium. The plan has architectural characteristics, such as the round sudatorium and the group of three pools in the frigidarium, that place it among second century CE Roman bathhouses.89 The 87  Mazar (2011), 1, 8 suggests that the moving of the legionary camp from the Western Hill to the Temple Mount enclosure and the foot of its southwestern corner may have been a response to the growing numbers of rebels under the leadership of Bar Kochba, who surely longed to recapture the Temple Mount. The moving of the Tenth Legion may have come as a direct response to this threat, as control over the enclosed, fortified Temple Mount was of the utmost strategic importance to prevent the recapture of the city by the Jews. However, it is also not impossible that this had already occurred at the time of the foundation of Aelia Capitolina. 88  Mazar (2006), 53. See the map of the Temple Mount suggested by Mazar (2011), 2, fig. 1.1. 89  Since sudatoria in this form do not appear in urban contexts in Italy and in the Mediterranean area in the second century CE, it appears that the bathhouse from the Temple Mount excavations is military rather than civilian. This is also supported by the great similarity between the tubuli (the hollow rectangular tubes which carried the hot air provided by the furnaces) found within the bathhouse and those from other sites related to the Roman army in the Jerusalem area (see Reuven [2011], 128) and by dozens of round bricks bearing the stamp impression of the Tenth Legion used in constructing the building. On the eight fragments of the statue of a nymph found in loco, which was probably part of the ornamentation of a swimming pool belonging to the bathhouse, see Peleg (2011), 307 and Sio and

INTRODUCTION

19

remains of the building which was found next to the bathhouse, too, point to the presence in loco of the Tenth Legion: it is a military bakery (furnaria castrensis)90 which contained several round ovens paved with broken bricks, a number of which bear the stamp of the legion.91 The bricks and roof tiles that cover the oven and bear the stamps of the Tenth Legion, the shape of the ovens, which has parallels in bakeries of Roman army camps, and the Latin inscription on the bread stamp, all connects the bakery to the soldiers of the Tenth Legion.92 The prevalence of brick stamps of the Tenth Legion characteristic of the second century CE at the Temple Mount excavations,93 and the relatively few inscriptions characteristic of the end of the second and the third century, support the conclusion that the principal construction activity at the site of the Temple Mount excavations took place at the time of the founding of Aelia Capitolina.94 This is also borne out by the relatively large number of coins of the period of Aelia Capitolina from the Temple Mount excavation,

Rapuano (2019), 172. A painted Greek inscription engraved on a building block was found in the caldarium: CIIP I, 2 (2012), 78, no. 776. 90  See Mazar (1971), 20 and Stiebel (1999), 72-74. 91  See Mazar (2011a), 178. On the circular ovens with floors paved with bricks and roof title fragments with stamp impressions of the Tenth Legion, see Adler (2011), 320-321. On the pottery found in the bakery, which included rouletted bowls, lamps, cooking pots, rilled-rim basins, casseroles, amphoras, chalices, frying pans, jars and jugs, see De Vincenz (2011), 185-194. In one of the bakery ovens, a stamp with the inscription PRIM (primus) was found (CIIP I, 2 [2012], 63-64, no. 760). Stiebel (2011), 229, sees in it a stamp probably used to indicate that a product, in this case bread, was of the highest quality, ‘panis primus,’ the bread consumed by the legion’s high officials. Eck, however (CIIP I, 2 [2012], 64), observes that not every stamp was used for marking bread and not every person mentioned on a stamp was a baker, and suggests translating PRIM “Product of Primus.” 92  Mazar (2011a), 178. 93  Adler (2011), 328 points out that the circular impression with fine letters stylized by dots separating the letters, and symbols of the legion (a galley and a boar) are characteristic of the legion’s first period in Jerusalem (70-130 CE), and some of them continue into the second half of the second century. In the second group of impressions, dating from the second century CE, there is a continuation of style from the first period, and there are still dots between the letters, albeit fewer, but the letters themselves are wider and less fine. 94  Mazar (2006), 53-58, 82; Adler (2011), 330.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

20

which contrasts with the very small number found in the area of the Citadel on the Western Hill and the Armenian Garden.95 If the camp of the Tenth Legion was located on the Temple Mount,96 it should not surprise us that the temple of Jupiter was erected there, since the building of temples in the midst of military camps was a prevailing custom at the time, as was the case at Luxor, at Palmyra and at Dura Europos.97 The possibility that the camp of the legion was situated on the Temple Mount is challenged by Prof. Dabrowa, who argues that, for obvious reasons, the buildings of the bathhouse and especially of the bakery were usually located inside the camp and not outside it, and, moreover, the space available at the top of the Temple Mount was probably not large enough to house the barracks of the legion.98 If, however, Mazar is correct in envisaging the existence of two camps, one at the top and one at the foot of the south-western corner of the Temple Mount, which functioned as one unit, then this might explain both these difficulties. In any case, scholars’ views do not completely contradict one another, since Weksler-Bdolah, too, who places the camp in the area of the southwestern hill, suggests that the narrow bridge connecting it with the Temple Mount allowed the soldiers to carry out regular patrols of the spot, perhaps establishing a military observation post somewhere on the site.99 It therefore appears that some kind of military activity did take place on the Temple Mount, which is not surprising in view of the strategical importance of its high topographical position. Another issue which deserves further consideration is the reason which led Hadrian to found Aelia Capitolina. On one hand, the new colony has been viewed as a natural part of Hadrian’s tour of Judaea, 95

 Mazar (2011), 6.  See also Mazar (2011), 1. 97  Isaac (1992), 148, 427. See also Mazar (2011), 7. As Ecker (2019), 110, points out, it is universally agreed that whatever shape it may have taken, a legionary camp must have included all the compounds and buildings necessary for a Roman military camp such as (e.g.) headquarters, barracks, bathhouses, and temples. 98  Personal communication. 99  See above, 17. A new assessment by Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah (2021), 300-331, came to my knowledge too late to be taken into account. 96

INTRODUCTION

21

which fitted his general policy all over the Empire, meant to achieve a better integration of the provinces, Judaea in this case, in the Roman ensemble.100 On the other hand, scholars are found who maintain that the new colony was deliberately meant to punish the Jewish people for having recently disrupted the peace in several Roman provinces at the end of Trajan’s reign.101 On the possible reactions of the Judaean Jews, too, views differ. If on one hand it has been argued that the new colony was probably welcomed by the Hellenistic and the pro-Roman elements within the Jewish population, to whom Hadrian probably thought he was doing a political and economic favor,102 on the other hand it has been viewed as an offense and an outrage to the Jewish inhabitants, and is identified with one of the causes which prompted the Bar Kokhba War which followed.103 Opinions also differ concerning the time when Aelia Capitolina was founded, since the testimony of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the fourth century, contradicts the information provided by Dio Cassius in the third century.104 The chronological issue is the first one to be addressed, since the setting of a date for the official founding of Aelia Capitolina has a bearing both on the reasons which prompted Hadrian’s very decision to establish the new colony and on the development of the events which later led to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War.

100

 See  See 102  See 103  See 104  See 101

below, below, below, below, below,

59-68. 69-75. 145-147. 148-155. 23-24.

1

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA THE TESTIMONIES OF DIO AND EUSEBIUS Dio Cassius, Roman statesman – twice consul, proconsul in Africa and Pannonia and senator – and author of eighty books of Roman history, from the arrival of Aeneas in Italy until 229 CE, has a startling observation concerning Hadrian’s founding of Aelia Capitolina. This founding, he states, was the reason which prompted the Bar Kokhba War: At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and instead of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.1

A completely different picture of the founding of Aelia Capitolina emerges from the work of Eusebius, historian of the Christian Church and bishop of Caesarea at the beginning of the fourth century. He mentions the founding of Aelia Capitolina not before the Bar Kokhba War but after its repression: The rebellion of the Jews once more progressed in character and extent… (Rufus, the governor of Judaea)… destroyed in heaps thousands of men, women, and children, and, under the law of war, enslaved their land. The Jews were at that time led by a certain Bar Chochebas… a man who was murderous and a bandit…. The war reached its height in the eighteenth year of the reign of Hadrian in Beththera…; the siege lasted a long time before the rebels were driven to the final destruction by famine and thirst, and the instigator of their madness paid the penalty he deserved. Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree and ordinances the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from 1

 69, 12, 1-2.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

24

entering the district round Jerusalem, so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home. Ariston of Pella tells the story. And thus, when the city came to be bereft of the nation of the Jews, and its ancient inhabitants had completely perished, it was colonized by foreigners, and the Roman city which afterwards arose changed its name, and in honor of the reigning emperor Aelius Hadrian was called Aelia.2

For a long time, scholars have dated the founding of Aelia Capitolina before or after the Bar Kokhba War according to the source preferred, Dio Cassius, who states that the founding of the colony preceded the war, or Eusebius, who mentions the creation of the new colony at the end of his account, after the description of the war. The implications are clear. If the building of the Roman colony followed the war, as Eusebius claims, then it is to be regarded as a rational and plausible consequence of the Jewish rebellion. If, on the other hand, Dio is correct in stating that the founding of the Roman colony preceded the revolt, then he may also be correct in stating that it is to be included among the reasons which prompted the war itself. According to their choice of Dio or of Eusebius, therefore, scholarly views were divided into two camps, and middle positions are also found, such as that of Smallwood, who suggests that a combination and harmonizing of the accounts of Dio and of Eusebius is not impossible, if one supposes that Dio records the inception of the plan, and Eusebius the fulfillment.3 A new approach to these queries is now provided by the numismatic findings, which constitute tangible contemporary evidence. THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE In the second half of the last century, subterranean installations started coming to light in different places around Judaea and Galilee, in some of which coins were found. Many of these were natural caves, while some incorporated existing rock cuttings such as cisterns, subterranean storage vaults, and burial chambers. Common to all these installations was their clandestine character and their arrangements 2

 HE 4, 6, 1-4.  Smallwood (1976), 433; Schäfer (1981), 84.

3

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

25

for blocking unlicensed entry. Each of them comprised a row of underground chambers of varying sizes connected by crooked galleries and passageways negotiable by only one person at a time, often only at a crawl. Air vents and light shafts extended to the surface, and several entrances, all hidden or camouflaged, were provided for each of these installations. The Bar Kokhba period installations were of two kinds. Some of the caves continued the earlier tradition of the hidden caves, but they were much larger and seem to have been constructed under a nation-wide plan. They were built in connection with existing villages and were meant to provide the entire noncombatant population with underground shelter while the fighting lasted.4 Another type of cave system, not directly connected with settlements, may have had an offensive use,5 and were sited so as to give easy access to strategic areas. They enabled the achievement of initial surprise against Roman bases, outposts, and communications, and permitted easy retreat into them, with a good chance of preserving their secrecy. If discovered, their many exits could be used not only as escape hatches but also to attack and beat off any adversary. A completely different situation occurred during the final stage of the war, when, during the Roman re-conquest, the Jews were being overpowered and these very caves were used as hideaways and refugia.6 In these caves, a number of hoards were found, which had been brought there by Jewish refugees seeking shelter, seemingly toward the end of the war. Here coins of Bar Kochba were found along with coins representing the founding of Aelia Capitolina, which means that the Roman mint started to operate before or during but not after the Bar Kochba War. At first, in the sixties and seventies of the last century, scholars doubted that these discoveries belonged to one and the same hoard since they were found in the northern region of the Judaean desert and in the Hebron Mountains in illicit excavations, and were often handled by antiquities dealers.7 Meshorer, however, had no doubt, 4  Cave systems of this kind were discovered at Horbat Maran, Horbat Midras, Horbat Naqiq and Horbat Um Shaqef. 5  They were discovered at En Carub, south of Bethlehem, Horbat Hita, in the Southwest Judaean piedmont, Ailabo, in Galilee; Horbat Hazon, Galilee; Herodium, on the outskirts of the Judaean Desert, and Horbat ‘Eqed. 6  See Kloner (1982), 4-23 and Gichon (1986), 25-27, 38. 7  On skeptical views, see Herr (1978), 9, note 42 and Tsafrir (2003), 34.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

26

since an identical patina covered the Bar Kokhba and the Aelia Capitolina coins, indicating that they did belong to one and the same hoard8 – a conclusion endorsed by Bowersock9 but not by many other scholars. A turning point was the discovery in the El-Jai Cave in Nahal Mikhmash (Wadi Suweinit) in the late nineties, where during a proper, systematic and controlled excavation by Hanan Eshel ‫ז"ל‬, an additional hoard was found.10 This hoard displayed four Bar Kochba coins along with two coins representing the founding of Aelia Capitolina, with Hadrian as founder ploughing the sulcus primigenius (the aboriginal furrow) with bull and cow during the ceremony of circumductio aratri to mark out the sacred boundary of the new colony, according to the Etrusco-Roman ritual.11 On the background of this coin appeared a vexillum (military standard), and the legend COL[ONIA] AEL[IA] KAPIT[OLINA] COND[ITA] (“The founding of Colonia Aelia Capitolina”).12 Since one of the coins found in the cave was minted in Gaza in 133/4,13 the conclusion was reached that the coins were brought to the El-Jai Cave by Jewish refugees towards the end of the war. Still, scholars were skeptical. Tsafrir, for example, claimed that since the hall where the coins were found is 50 m. long, there is no reason to assume that all the coins found in the cave were left there by the same group of persons.14 Eshel, on the other hand, responded that it is not reasonable that the coins of Aelia Capitolina and those 8

 Meshorer (1967), 92-93; idem (1980), 69-70.  Bowersock (1980), 135. 10  Eshel (1997), 24-25; Eshel, Zissu and Frumkin (1998), 94-98; Eshel (2000), 641-643; Eshel and Zissu (2002), 168-172. 11  See Belayche (2001), 120, note 107. This scene is represented for the first time on the coins issued by L. Cassius Caecinus between the second and the first century BCE, and from this moment on, it became extremely popular on the coins of the colonies, even if it seldom appears in Roman art. See Dabrowa [2003] (2020), 102, note 22. On the stages to be found in the process of the foundation of a colony, namely, the proclamation of the name, the augurium (the good sign), the sulcus primigenius and then the sacrifice in the sulcus (mundus), see Weikert (2016), 270 (with note 206) and 277. 12  Eshel and Zissu (2002), 168-172, coin no. 11 and Zissu (2016), 391. 13  See Eshel and Zissu (2002), 171, coin no. 10. It bears a double date: the fifth years since Hadrian’s visit there, and the year 194 of the era of Gaza, which means 133/4. See also Eshel (2007), 27, note 28. 14  Zafrir (2003), 33-36. See also Isaac (2012), 19 and Eckner-Cotton (2012), 493. 9

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

27

Fig. 6. The foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Meshorer (1989), 70-71, no. 2. CNG Auction 97, 17 September 2014, Lot: 531.

Fig. 7. The foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Design by Tameanko (1999), 21.

of the Bar Kokhba War were brought there at different times by different peoples, since they were found not in a central hall but in an inner chamber approachable only by a long crawl through a complex system of natural passages and burrows.15 A full refutation of the approach of Tsafrir is offered in an article which appeared in 2016, where Zissu gives a detailed report of the exact place where the coins were found.16 15  Eshel (2007), 27, note 29 observes that Mildenberg (1984), 55, too, maintains that the coins found in the same cave may be considered a hoard in spite of the fact that they were not found one besides the other. 16  Zissu (2016), 390, note 12.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

28

Fig. 8. Plan of the El-Jai cave. Design by Eshel-Zissu (2002), 169.

In all probability, the hoard found by Eshel ‫ ז“ל‬may be considered a genuine hoard, and therefore, since the Aelia Capitolina coins circulated during the Bar Kochba War, the mint cannot be regarded as a consequence of the war, which means that the official foundation of Aelia Capitolina took place before and not after the Bar Kokhba War.17 This conclusion is confirmed by Kindler relying on the shape of Hadrian’s portrait which appears on the coin found in the El-Jai Cave, which is similar to that appearing in the coins struck at Dor, at Gaba, at Tiberias and at Gerasa and Petra in the first period of his reign, from 117 until about 130: Hadrian’s head is somewhat flattened and similar to that of Trajan, in contrast to his portrait on the coins from the last years of his reign, which no longer imitates that of Trajan, and displays a larger head and a fuller face.18 The obverse legend of this coin, too, is significant in that it mentions the name of Trajan along with that of Hadrian, a praxis which was followed, either in full or abbreviated, with minor variations, until the late 120s, and was finally abandoned around 134 at the latest, when 17

 Eshel and Zissu (2002), 168-172.  Kindler (2000-2002), 177 and 178, note 11.

18

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

29

Trajan’s name is no longer mentioned on most of Hadrian’s coins.19 Further confirmation that the mint started operating before the Bar Kokhba War, is the fact that a coin commemorating the founding of Aelia Capitolina was also found in the archaeological excavation at Shu’afat.20 If one assumes that the colony was officially founded in the presence of Hadrian, then this must have taken place in the span of time in which Hadrian was in Judaea. A DATE

FOR THE

OFFICIAL FOUNDING

If Aelia Capitolina was founded while Hadrian was staying in Jerusalem, the time when this took place has often been determined in relation to the letter which he wrote to the city of Hierapolis while “staying in Jerusalem,” as he states on l. 13.21 In the long lacuna which appears on this line, he presumably also specified the exact place where he was writing, a place situated “in Jerusalem:”

19

 See Kindler (2000-2002), 178.  Bar Nathan and Bijovski (2018), 145-146. See below, 79. 21  AE 2004, no. 1424 = SEG 2005, no. 1416 = Ritti (2017), 386. 20

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

30

Ritti identifies this place with the military camp of the legio X Fretensis, which was situated in Jerusalem. Mention of it, in the usual formula apó followed by genitive, presumably appeared before the words ‘in Jerusalem,’ along with the precise date. Since Aelia Capitolina is not mentioned in the letter, the conclusion was reached, that the letter was written before the founding of the new colony22 A different interpretation is suggested by WekslerBdolah, according to whom the words which are lacking on line 13 might have been “from the new city I am building in Jerusalem” or “from Aelia Capitolina (that is being built) in Jerusalem,”23 in which case the letter cannot not be taken as a terminus post quem for the foundation of the colony. It is not necessary, however, to decide which interpretation is more plausible, since in any case the precise date of the letter is not preserved, and from lines 2 and 3 we only learn that it was written during Hadrian’s third consulate and his fourteenth tribunicia potestas, namely, any time between 10 December 129 and 9 December 130.24 The same titles also appear in an inscription engraved on a building dedicated to Hadrian by the Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina,25 which was probably a memento of the imperial visit and not that of the completion of the building work. It is fortunate that a more precise date for Hadrian’s visit to Judaea is possible thanks to the epigraphical and numismatic material which reports on the itinerary of Hadrian’s journey to Arabia and to Egypt via Judaea. From this material we learn that Hadrian arrived in Judaea after visiting Palmyra and Arabia in the spring of 130,26 and by 10 July at the latest he is already attested at Gaza in his way to Egypt,27 where he is found at Alexandria before 28 August.28

22

 See Ritti (2004), 339 and eadem (2017), 388.  Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 55. 24  See Ritti (2017), 386 and note 72 on other possible dates. 25  Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 59. 26  See Halfmann (1986), 193; Ritti (2004), 337 and Witulski (2012), 229, note 276. On Hadrian’s visit at Palmyra and Arabia see Millar (1993), 106. 27  See Holum (1992), 55. See also Birley (1997), 234 and idem (2003), 431. 28  See Sijpesteijn (1969), 111, note 15; Halfmann (1986), 207; Witulski (2012), 229, note 278. 23

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

31

It therefore appears that, if Hadrian was present at the official founding of Aelia Capitolina,29 this may have taken place during the six (according to Witulski) or eight (according to Holum) weeks that he spent in Judaea.30 Since on 10 July Hadrian is already found at Gaza on his way to Egypt, this period of six or eight weeks must have begun in late May, and therefore any time in this span of time, between late May and early July, may be reasonably taken as the official founding date of Aelia Capitolina. AN EARLIER DATE FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE PREPARATORY BUILDING WORKS The preliminary works on the colony, however, appear to have started earlier, as some scholars intuitively suggested long ago.31 This conclusion does not rely on the interpretation which is often offered to a passage of Epiphanius,32 an interpretation which is rather problematic.33 It also does not rely on a possible but improbable visit of Hadrian to Jerusalem in 117.34 The conclusion that the works on Aelia Capitolina started before its official founding is now provided by the findings of the archaeological excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem carried out between 2005 and 2010 on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and initiated by the Western Wall Heritage 29

 See Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 57.  Holum (1992), 55; Witulski (2012), 229. 31  See Dürr (1881), 16. Gray (1923), 256, suggests that in 117 Hadrian decided to re-found Jerusalem and actually had the work started immediately, although it soon ‘languished’ and was not taken up again until the Emperor’s visit. See also Golan (1986), 226. 32  On Weights and Measures, ch. 14. 33  Halfmann (1986), 193, 207 and Baker (2012), 157-167. For a different view, see Di Segni (2014), 441-451. 34  According to Isaac [1979] (1998a), 187, Hadrian probably remained in Syria from August to October 117. That Hadrian may have arrived in Jerusalem in 117, as Capponi (2010), 489-501 argues, is not theoretically impossible, since Hadrian started his north-westward journey to Rome only in October 117 – on the stations of Hadrian’s journey to Rome mentioned in CIL VI 5076, see Birley (1997), 83 and idem (2003), 425-441. However, a journey to Judaea at this time is not unequivocally supported by the evidence of the sources. See also Gregorovius (1883), 489; Witulski (2012), 230; Ben Zeev (2018), 97-98 and Bernini (2019), 561. 30

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

32

Fig. 9. The excavation site in the Old City of Jerusalem. Weksler-Bdolah (2014a), 39. Photo: Natalya Zak.

Foundation, under the direction of Alexander Onn and Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah in the north-western part of the Western Wall Plaza of the Old City of Jerusalem.35 The area of the excavations is located 35

 For a history of the previous excavations carried out in loco, see Kloner and Bar-Nathan (2017a), 60-63.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

33

Fig. 10. Eastern Cardo, view to the northwest. The shop cells are at the left of the street. The Mediaeval arch at lower left is a later addition. Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2017), 19. Photo: S. Weksler-Bdolah.

along the axis of El-Wad (ha-Gai) Street, which leads from the Damascus Gate in the north to the Dung Gate in the south, following the line of the colonnaded street, the Eastern Cardo of Roman Jerusalem, and which is today one of the main thoroughfares of the Old City. At a depth of approximately 5-6 m below the level of the present plaza, the remains of the Eastern Cardo, which clearly appear in the depiction of Jerusalem in the Madaba Map, were exposed to their full width, including the porticos and the row of shops along the western portico.36 These remains allow us to trace the street from the time of its paving as an elaborate colonnaded street, consisting of an 8-m-wide carriageway lined with a 1.5-m-wide sidewalk on both sides.37 Bordering each sidewalk was a row of columns belonging to 6- to 6.5-m-wide porticos.38 36

 See Weksler-Bdolah (2019d), 195-196.  Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 153. 38  Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 158. See also Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2017), 18-19 and Weksler-Bdolah (2019d), 195-196. 37

34

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Fig. 11. General view of the Roman Eastern Cardo and the Western Wall Plaza at the end of excavation (2009), looking northeast. Weksler Bdolah and Onn (2019), 159. Photo: S. Weksler-Bdolah.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

35

Fig. 12. General view of the Roman Eastern Cardo at the end of excavation (2009), looking south; to the right, the row of shops quarried into bedrock and behind them, the quarried bedrock cliff; below right, remains of the First Temple period building Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 161. Photo: S. Weksler-Bdolah.

36

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

The dating of the construction of the Eastern Cardo relies upon the latest finds sealed beneath the paving stones of the street. During the preparatory works preceding the paving of the street, a quarry, located along the route of the Cardo, was filled up and a massive retaining wall was built inside the quarry, along the route of the Cardo’s eastern stylobate, and a dump was deposited against its faces. The accumulation, which the excavators called the ‘Roman dump,’ was sealed under the Cardo’s pavement and under the flagstones of the street, and displays a multitude of small finds, large amounts of sherds, coins, broken glass vessels, imperial lamps and fine tableware and animal – mostly pig – bones, a hallmark of the Roman army dietary debris.

Fig. 13. Accumulation of Roman dump inside quarry L8170, against the foundation of Wall 804. The dump is sealed beneath flagstones of street L 8020. Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2017), 16.

Most of the pottery shapes may be attributed to the Roman Legion manufacturing tradition, and many types are known from the kiln site of the Tenth Roman Legion at the Jerusalem International Convention Center, and may be dated to the late first/early second century.39 Among the coins found in the Roman dump, in the area of the eastern portico, the latest date to the reign of Domitian, 39  See Rosenthal-Heginbottom (2011), 195-227 and Rosenthal-Heginbottom (2017), 38-39.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

37

86/87 CE, while in the sealed fill under the flagstones of the Cardo a coin of Hadrian was found.40 According to the numismatic evidence, it appears that the date for the construction of the Cardo should be placed at the beginning of Hadrian’s rule.41 Among the finds were three stone military bread stamps – two complete and one fragmentary – bearing a two-line inscription, with the symbol of the military unit (centuria), the name of the centurion and the name of the military baker, all of them soldiers in the legion. In view of the form of the letters, this inscription has been dated to the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century CE.42

Fig. 14. Limestone military bread stamp of the Roman Legion, inscribed in Latin: “(Centuria) Caspe(rii), (Opus) Canin(ii)” (Century) of Casperius, (work) of Caninius. Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 164. Photo Clara Amit. 40

 Respectively, nos. 33 and 35 in Bijovsky (2019), 166-167.  Bijovsky (2019), 167. 42  See Di Segni and Weksler-Bdolah (2012), 21*, 29* = CIIP I, 2 (2012), 61, no. 757. See also Weksler-Bdolah and Onn (2019), 164 and Di Segni (2021), 135139. Other military bread stamps appear in CIIP I, 2 (2012), 59-60, no. 755: “Century of Amatius, work of Gaius Antonius” and in CIIP I, 2 (2012), 64-65, no. 761: “Century of Aponius (?), (work) of Sutorius (?).” 41

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

38

A similar conclusion may be drawn from the pottery found in the Roman refuge dump unearthed during the same excavations, which included vessels for food transportation, storage, processing and cooking, fine tableware, figurines, masks, and altars. The homogeneity of the assemblage and the paucity of residual material, in combination with the stratigraphic evidence, permit the attribution of the deposit to a single phase, datable to the time span between 75 and 125 CE.43 Similar conclusions may be reached from the examination of the glass assemblage and the groundstone objects found in the same dump, the use of which and the deposit date to no later than the first third of the second century CE.44 Then, during the excavations directed by Alexander Onn on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority between 2007 and 2012 within the underground vaults of the giant viaduct, the remains of a bridge were found, which was constructed some time before the foundation of Aelia Capitolina and connected the slopes of the South Western hill with the ruined temenos of the Temple Mount, which rose strategically above its surroundings. Then, when Aelia Capitolina was founded, the narrow bridge connecting the Temple Mount with the SW hill was widened with another row of arches, and on the top of both rows the flagstones of the Decumanus were laid.45 In view of these data, the excavators reached the conclusion that the Hadrianic date for both phases of construction of the Eastern Cardo – preparation of the infrastructure (probably around the 120s) and the actual paving of the street (some time later) – implies… that the decision to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman city was made by Hadrian shortly after his accession to the throne, in 117/118 CE: around this date, a city plan of the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina was probably prepared and the construction of the main thoroughfares begun.46

It therefore appears that the common assumption that the construction started after the proclamation of Aelia Capitolina as a Roman colony 43

 Rosenthal-Heginbottom (2011), 222. See also Weksler-Bdolah (2021), 13.  Gorin-Rosen (2021), 27; Ouahnouna (2021), 126. 45  Weksler-Bdolah (2017a), 92-94. 46  Weksler-Bdolah, Onn, Kisilevitz and Ouahnouna (2012), 47; Di Segni and Weksler-Bdolah (2012), 21*-31*; Weksler-Bdolah (2014a), 48-49 and 56; Weksler-Bdolah (2019c), 7-88. 44

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

39

during Hadrian’s visit to the east in 130 CE should be re-evaluated in light of these findings. The urban planning and some building activity seemingly occurred in the city prior to that time, about a decade earlier than the well-known visit of Hadrian to Judaea:47 a conclusion which is starting to be taken into account in recent scholarly works.48 An earlier date for the beginning of the construction of the infrastructures of Aelia Capitolina does not contradict the foundation ceremony in 130. As Leah Di Segni points out, the laying down of the city plan and the preparation of the infrastructures must certainly have taken considerable time, considering the topography of Jerusalem and the state in which large parts of the city had remained after the destruction in 70. As the excavators observe, the pavement of the Cardo was laid at a later stage, and when Hadrian visited Jerusalem in 130, the official ceremony of the foundation could take place,49 Hadrian could ‘cut the ribbon’ so to speak, and on that occasion declare the foundation of Colonia Aelia Capitolina.50 The fact that the infrastructure works preceded the actual foundation of the colony a considerable span of time comes as no surprise. It appears that the act of founding a colony was often preceded by a planning phase.51 A good example may be the case of Corinth. In 146 BCE it was destroyed by Lucius Mummius, and then in 111,

47

 Weksler Bdolah and Onn (2017), 21-22; Weksler Bdolah and Onn (2019), 165, 168. See also Weikert (2016), 271; Mazor (2017), 74; Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 54. The possibility has also been suggested, that the works may have started during the reign of Trajan. See Weksler-Bdolah (2019c), 88. 48  Ecker and Cotton (2012), 493 observe that “it is possible that Hadrian arrived in a half-built Jerusalem… and on that occasion declared the foundation of Colonia Aelia Capitolina.” See also Geiger (2016), 517. Weikert (2016), 271 points out that “the results of the Cardo excavations make it plausible that large parts of the Roman city had been built even before Hadrian’s visit and the official foundation of the colony.” See also Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 147; Ziosi (2018), 130, note 15; Ben Zeev (2019), 96-97. See also Farhi (2014), 129, no. 23 and Geiger 2016. 49  Di Segni (2014), 448. Prause (1988), 218, too, observes that in 130 Hadrian paid a visit to Jerusalem… and realized a plan, which he presumably already had in mind: to transform Jerusalem into a Roman colony. 50  See Eckner-Cotton (2012), 493. 51  Weikert (2016), 270.

40

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

a lex agraria was passed, where two albeit fragmentary lines mention the measurement of a part of the land of the surrounding territory and the erection of boundary-stones.52 The archaeological evidence, too, seems to attest that there was a regular and organized division of land (limitatio) carried out, revealing traces of the place where the Cardo Maximus was planned. All this indicates the intention of the Romans to build a Roman city there,53 even if the actual founding of Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis took place much later, in 44 BCE.54 This may also have been the case of Aelia Capitolina. The works may have started soon after Hadrian attained power, while the official ceremony took place some years later, in 130.55 There is therefore no doubt that Dio was correct in placing the founding of the colony before the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War. At this point the question arises, what may have been his source, and queries arise also in the case of the account offered by Eusebius, namely, what may have been the reason, or reasons, which led him to mention the founding of Aelia Capitolina after the account of the war, seemingly as one of its consequences. 52  CIL 1, 2nd, 585, ll. 96-97: “… the dummvir appointed or created under this law within… days after his appointment or creation as duumvir, … the land and territory, which belonged to the Corinthians… apart from that land. … he shall ensure that the land and territory, which should be sold according to this law, is all measured and boundary-stones erected… .” Lintott (1992), 54, observes that the centuriation in Corinthian territory suggests that a colony may have been planned, and that there is nothing surprising about this. Traditionally, the Romans exploited military victories to provide their citizens with land. In his commentary, on p. 280, he also points out that “it is interesting that a magistrate, probably the duumvir mentioned in the preceding line, is required to carry out centuriation in the ager Corinthiorum. The operations in Greece may be relevant to the subsequent proposal of Saturninus to put a colony or colonies in Achaea.” See also Romano (1993), 12-13. 53  Romano (1994), 62-63. For a different interpretation, see Walbank (1997), 99-102. 54  As to the question why the Romans waited so long to found the colony, even if for strategic and commercial reasons it would have been imperative to have a presence at the site, Lintott (1992), 58 notes that there was a period during the social and civil wars and their aftermath, when the safeguards envisaged by the legislator of 111 BCE regarding the occupation of certain types of public land must have been completely overlooked. 55  See above, 30-31.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

41

TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BACKGROUND OF DIO’S AND EUSEBIUS’S ACCOUNTS One would like to know the source of Dio’s information regarding the Bar Kokhba War, but unfortunately there is no definite answer, and we may only point to possibilities. Millar emphasizes the fact that, having been born a mere thirty years after the events, Dio may have relied on the fund of common knowledge available to a historian in recording facts which took place no more than a century before he wrote.56 In this direction would point an incident from his own time mentioned by Dio, which would have been pointless if the story had not been well known,57 and, in fact, Dio himself mentions “the abundant evidence which I have gathered from my reading [and] from hearsay.”58 Regarding the Bar Kokhba War, it is not impossible that Dio’s father Cassius Apronianus was a possible source of information. He had been proconsul of Lycia and Pamphylia around 179/180, and then served as legate of Cilicia in 180-183,59 so that he had not been far from the theatre of the events. Dio himself, who accompanied his father in Cilicia, presumably as a comes, states that while in the province, he discovered the truth about the death of Trajan at Selinus in 117 and the accession of Hadrian,60 and also an event which appears to have taken place in 182 or 183.61 56  According to Birley (1995), 64-65, in all likelihood Dio wrote his Roman History over the years 220-231. 57  Millar (1964), 62. 58  Dio 53, 19, 6. See Hose (2007), 465. 59  Barnes (1984), 242. 60  “Hadrian… became Caesar and emperor owing to the fact that when Trajan died childless, Attianus, a compatriot and former guardian of his, together with Plotina, who was in love with him, secured him the appointment, their efforts being facilitated by his proximity and by his possession of a large military force. My father, Apronianus, who was governor of Cilicia, had ascertained accurately the whole story about him, and he used to relate the various incidents, in particular stating that the death of Trajan was concealed for several days in order that Hadrian’s adoption might be announced first. This was shown also by Trajan’s letters to the senate, for they were signed, not by him, but by Plotina, although she had not done this in any previous instance” (Dio, 69, 1, 1-4). Historical reliability is denied to this passage by Merten (1977), 257, and by Baldwin (1985), 197, who regard it only as a literary topos. See also Boatwright (2000), 21, note 15. 61  Barnes (1984), 242, note 11.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

42

In any case, Dio also used written sources, as he himself informs his readers.62 One of them was the Autobiography of Hadrian, which he explicitly mentions when reporting on the death of Antinous.63 This may well have been his source also when, dealing with the Bar Kokhba War, he reports on Hadrian’s letter to the senate omitting the usual beginning “If you and your children are in health, it is well. I and the legions are in health.” 64 According to Millar, not only this detail, but the whole account of the Bar Kokhba War may have relied, directly or indirectly, on Hadrian’s report to the senate: The only part of the text as it stands where a coherent source seems to underlie Dio’s account is on the Jewish revolt of 132-5 (69.12-14). It is possible that Dio’s information here was derived, directly or indirectly, from Hadrian’s report to the Senate, for he mentions the wording of one of the letters explicitly (14.3), and the only points of details which his account contains are the number of places taken and men slain and the name of the commander, Julius Severus.65

However, Dio’s passage relating the founding of Aelia Capitolina would hardly have shown up in Hadrian’s Autobiography since it presents it in a somewhat negative way, as responsible for the war which followed. This would hardly fit the Autobiography, the purpose of which was, judging from the scant extant citations, to contradict contemporary statements about Hadrian himself which he considered derogatory to his reputation, and to present to posterity in a favorable light both his person and his deeds.66 Other paths, therefore, should be sought. 62

 Dio, 53, 19, 6.  “Antinous… had died in Egypt, either by falling into the Nile, as Hadrian writes, or, as the truth is, by being offered in sacrifice” (Dio 69, 11, 2). 64  “Many Romans perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, ‘If you and your children are in health, it is well. I and the legions are in health’” (Dio 69, 14, 3). Stern (1980), 394 observes that it is not impossible that Dio here cites a citation from another literary source, while Baldwin (1985), 197 points out that “since Dio uses this to make a point (diò kaí), it can be added to the list of documents actually used by him as evidence.” 65  Millar (1964), 62. 66  The Autobiography of Hadrian is mentioned several times in the HA: “For Hadrian himself relates in his autobiography that his forefathers came from Hadria…” (Hadr., 1, 1); “… Palma was put to death at Tarracina, Celsus at Baiae, 63

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

43

A possible source may be identified with the imperial biographies written by Marius Maximus, senator, general of Septimius Severus, praefectus urbi in 217/8 and consul for the second time in 223, who composed a continuation of Suetonius’s work from Nerva to Elagabalus. This is borne out by an impressive list of passages which occur both in the work of Dio and in that of the HA, some of the latter explicitly said to derive from Maximus or virtually certainly attributable to him.67 Concerning the execution of the four consulars at the beginning of Hadrian’ reign, for example, the similarity between the account of Dio68

Nigrinus at Faventia, and Lusius on his journey homeward, all by order of the senate, but contrary to the wish of Hadrian, as he himself says in his autobiography’ (Hadr. 7, 1-2); “so desiderous of a wide-spread reputation was Hadrian that he even wrote his own biography; this he gave to his educated freedmen, with instructions to publish it under their own names. For indeed, Phlegon’s writings, it is said, are in reality Hadrian’s” (Hadr., 16, 1). On the problems of authenticity entailed by this passage, see Syme (1991), 160 and Meckler (1996), 375, note 46. On the relation between Hadrian’s autobiography and the work of Phlegon, a polymath from Tralles, freedman of Hadrian, and a likely enough candidate for the task of hellenizing the emperor’s memoirs, see the bibliography quoted by Millar (1964), 61, n. 7. Geiger (2016), 512, points out that in view of the other works composed by Phlegon, a biography of his patron seems credible enough. He certainly was present with Hadrian during the Parthian War in the last year of Trajan and he may have attended him in Egypt, and if so, certainly also in Judaea, so that we may certainly assume that Phlegon’s work contained exactly what the emperor wished to read. Of course, as Lewis (1993), 705, points out, Hadrian had much to explain, not least his accession, changes of policy, elimination of opposition, achievements as emperor, and, quite possibly, his arrangements to appoint heirs. 67  The author of the HA cites Marius Maximus as a source as many as 28 times. See Syme (1971), 124-128; Barnes (1978), 98-107; Syme (1983), 33; Birley (1995), 64-65. Birley (1997a), 2727-2730, offers a list of the passages of the HA which display a critical and often hostile flavor to Hadrian and are attributable to Marius Maximus. As for the relatively brief sections which can be called impartial or favorable to Hadrian, he suggests that they could perfectly well reflect Maximus reproducing portions of Hadrian’s autobiography. 68  “Hadrian, though he ruled with the greatest mildness, was nevertheless severely criticized for slaying several of the best men in the beginning of his reign and again near the end of his life, and for this reason he came near to failing to be enrolled among the demigods. Those who were slain at the beginning were Palma and Celsus, Nigrinus and Lusius, the first two for the alleged reason that they had conspired against him during a hunt, and the others on certain complaints, but in reality because they had great influence and enjoyed wealth and fame” (Dio, 69, 2, 5).

44

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

and that of the HA69 is striking.70 It seems therefore plausible that the passage of Dio concerning Aelia Capitolina may derive from the work of Maximus, the more so because of the latent criticism to be found in the link made between the founding of the colony and the war that followed, which fits well the “purposeful malice” found in the biographies of the Antonine emperors written by Maximus,71 who is called ‘the subversive biographer’ by Syme.72 Dio’s criticism, however, may well also have stemmed from his own reflection and experience, which had a meaningful place in his judgement of the events he reports on, as is indicated, for example, by his remarks about the topography of Thapsus and Siscia, by his description of the testudo as used by the Roman army and by his description of Trajan’s bridge across the Danube.73 Madesen points out that, being a refined political thinker, Dio analyzed the information he gathered from archives, letters and earlier sources, and drew his own conclusions.74 Dio himself points out: everything that I shall say will be in accordance with the reports that have been given out, whether it be really true or otherwise. In addition to these reports, however, my own opinion will be given, as far as possible, whenever I have been able, from the abundant evidence which I have gathered from my reading,75 from hearsay, and from what I have seen, to form a judgment that differs from the common report.76

69  “A plot to murder him while sacrificing was made by Nigrinus, with Lusius and a number of others as accomplices, even though Hadrian had destined Nigrinus for the succession; but Hadrian successfully evaded this plot. Because of this conspiracy Palma was put to death at Tarracina, Celsus at Baiae, Nigrinus at Faventia, and Lusius on his journey homeward, all by order of the senate, but contrary to the wish of Hadrian” (HA, Hadr., 7, 1-2). 70  On the use of the work of Marius Maximus by Dio and by the HA, see also Schwartz (1983), 296. 71  See Syme (1991), 163. 72  Syme (1983), 177. On p. 178, he points out that the intention of the consular biographer was to compose a ‘chronique scandaleuse’ of the Antonine dynasty. 73  See Barnes (1984), 253 and Hose (2007), 464-465. 74  Madesn (2019), 114, 119. 75  Hose (2007), 464, emphasizes Dio’s complete immersion in the material and observes that he used available historiography to the greatest extent possible. 76  53, 19, 6.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

45

Regarding his own judgement, one should also consider the importance of the conscious or unconscious influence of the senatorial framework to which Dio belonged on his views and insights. If the connection made by Dio between the founding of Aelia Capitolina and the following war is not to be linked to the work of Marius Maximus but to his own insight, then it may well reflect the somewhat critical attitude towards Hadrian which characterized much of the senatorial elite to which Dio belonged.77 Another striking feature of the passage, which is quite unusual in ancient sources, is the link between the Bar Kokhba War and its religious background: At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city… and instead of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.78

This account emerges as somewhat uncommon when compared with standard accounts of wars found in ancient literature. Isaac points out that no other insurrection is said in ancient Greek and Latin literature to have been caused directly by the actions of an emperor, and, also, no other insurrection is said to have arisen primarily from religious and ideological motives. Revolts are often said to have broken out because of excessive demands made upon money or goods of the provincials and the desire for liberty might be mentioned as a significant factor or an effective slogan, but religious elements were never considered in this context.79 Religious factors, on the other hand, do characterize the writings of the authors living in medieval times, which in turn raises the question whether the original passage of Dio may have been altered by Xiphilinus, the jurist and monk who summarized his work at the request of the Emperor Michael VII Parapinaces in the eleventh century. Of many of the books of Dio, this summary is the only one to have survived the vagaries of transmission, and a comparison between the passages of Dio which survive and 77

 See below, 49, 87-89.  69, 12, 1-2. 79  Isaac (1998e), 211-214. 78

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

46

their abridgment in the work of Xiphilinus indicates that Xiphilinus often actively engaged with the text of Dio, by condensing extensive passages and excerpting by verbal quotation what seemed to him relevant. From a survey of the parts which survived of Dio’s text compared to the summary of Xiphilinus concerning the Principate, the conclusion has been drawn that Xiphilinus’ account, which is about a quarter of Dio’s length, is a mixture of quotations, abbreviations, and omissions, where his cardinal sin is the arbitrary omission of Dio’s interest in administrative changes, which may explain why we hear of none under Hadrian. All in all, it has been observed, Xiphilinus fails to preserve the proportions of Dio’s narrative or to make clear his interpretation of events, and though to an unexpectedly large extent his epitome is a series of excerpts, it simply omits much that Dio must have thought, and rightly, was of importance, so that his narrative results in a string of isolated episodes, which is a characteristic feature of the Byzantine collections.80 The selection of the material was obviously determined by Xiphilinus’ personal concerns,81 which were responsible for the condensation of the events, which in turn brought about changes in sequence and telescoping together of subsequent happenings;82 on occasion, we also find statements which explicit reflect his own views.83 It is therefore legitimate to wonder whether the description of the founding of Aelia Capitolina, the building of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and the consequent following war, may have been the 80

 Brunt (1980), 490-491.  Boatwright (2000), 20. 82  See Gichon (1986), 42. 83  For example, Xiphilinus censures Dio for not accepting the Christian version of the rain miracle and interpolates material from Eusebius in the gap left by the loss of Dio’s 70th book. More remarkably, he unfavourably contrasts Dio’s love of omens with Polybius’ indifference to them, expressly prefers Plutarchus’ judgment on Brutus and Cassius to that of Dio, and silently interpolated in Dio’s narrative the observation that Augustus’ nephew, Marcellus, was descended from the hero of the Hannibalic war, which he most probably derived from Plutarch’s Marcellus 30. Brunt (1980), 489, points out that the first person generally designates Dio and not Xiphilinus, so that on one of the few occasions on which the epitomator introduces himself he feels it necessary to say ‘I am no longer writing as Dio of Prusa (sic) who lived under the emperors Severus and Alexander, but as John Xiphilinus… who made this summary of Dio’s numerous books under the emperor Michael Ducas” (87.6 D). 81

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

47

interpretation given by Xiphilinus to Dio’s original text. Eliav, for example, notices content gaps in the natural design of the passage, of its vocabulary and of the theological tendencies it reflects:84 in the course of paraphrasing this passage, Xiphilinus, or another author before him, turned the situation into a theological confrontation between Hadrian and the Jewish God. This writer re-situated the pagan shrine, shifting it from the city in general to the Temple Mount in particular. Moreover, he painted a neutral act customary in the establishment of a new colony in the harsh colors of a religious confrontation by using a “loaded” verb and referring to the temple by a name familiar to both Jewish and Christian readers.85

Eliav therefore concludes, that most probably the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus did not stand on the Temple Mount on the site where the Jewish Temple had stood, but rather in another spot of the city. This conclusion is often endorsed,86 and in fact this is not classical but post-classical Greek, where the expression es tòn toû naoû toû theoû tópon does not mean ‘on the place of the temple of the (Jewish) God,’ namely, ‘on the site of ’, but rather ‘instead of ’, as Bowersock and Isaac point out,87 which means that the passage did not mean to give a precise indication of the place where the temple of Jupiter was erected. Against the possibility that the whole passage was altered and distorted by Xiphilinus, however, stands the fact that the link between the founding of Aelia Capitolina and the war which followed, which casts the responsibility of the war on Hadrian and not on the Jews, would not fit the perspective of Xiphilinus. As a Christian monk, Xiphilinus would rather identify the Jews as responsible for the war, as does Eusebius.88

84

 Eliav (1997), 133.  See Eliav (1997), 142. This conclusion is endorsed by Bazzana (2010), 90, who states that this line of reasoning seems to be entirely acceptable considering that the Byzantine author lived after the great Constantinian building activity of the fourth century and that he was understandably inclined to trust the idealised history of Jerusalem that he could read in such Christian writers as Eusebius. 86  See above, 15, note 73. 87  Bowersock (1980), 137; Isaac (2010), 20. 88  See below, 50. 85

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

48

The fact that Hadrian, and not the Jews, is presented by Dio as somehow responsible for the following war, appears to betray a somewhat sympathetic attitude toward the Jews. This is by no means surprising. A neutral and objective attitude of Dio toward the Jews, which might perhaps be called even somewhat sympathetic, also emerges from the seventeenth book of his work, which has reached us in its original form and not only through Xiphilinus’ summary. Here Dio reveals a remarkable knowledge of many details of Jewish life and customs, which may derive from literary sources or, perhaps, from personal acquaintance, either in his native Nicaea in Bithynia, where the existence of a Jewish community is attested between the fourth and the sixth century CE, but may well have dated back to Dio’s time, and perhaps earlier,89 or in Rome. Dio is acquainted with the monotheistic principle of Judaism, with the Shabbat observance, with the fact that the Jews had never set up a statue of their God,90 and he is also aware of the lively relations existing between Judaean and diaspora Jews.91 What is remarkable is, that he does not display any anti-Jewish bias or any of the prejudices which are found in much of the Greek and Latin works written in previous times. Even when mentioning the fact that the Jews are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, for example, he does not explain Jewish separatism by misanthropy. This kind of sympathetic attitude is unusual at the time in which he lived, and even more so at the time of Xiphilinus, and this may constitute a further 89

 See Fine and Rutgers (1996), 17.  “They are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honour any of the usual gods, but show extreme reverence for one particular divinity. They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem itself, but believing him to be unnamable and invisible, they worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth. … (they) dedicated to him the day called the day of Saturn, on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they undertake no serious occupations” (Dio, 37, 17, 2-3 = Stern [1980], no. 406). 91  “… the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given them, but it applies to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who follow their customs. These people are found even among the Romans, and though often repressed have increased to a very great extent and has won their way to the right of freedom in their observances” (Dio 37, 16, 5-17, 1 = Stern [1980], no. 406). 90

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

49

indication that the passage concerning the foundation of Aelia Capitolina does probably reflect the original text of Dio. All in all, this passage of Dio is remarkably meaningful. His statement that the founding of Aelia Capitolina took place before the Bar Kokhba War, which is in accordance with what we now know to have been factual reality, as attested by the numismatic and the archaeological evidence,92 may indicate that he cites here a reliable source, probably to be identified with the work of Marius Maximus.93 As for the fact that the founding of Aelia Capitolina is presented as a trigger for the war which followed, it may be interpreted in different ways, as reflecting the attitude of Marius Maximus, and/or that of the senatorial circles to which Dio belonged, which were somewhat hostile to Hadrian, and/or that of Dio himself, who consistently objected to what he deemed to be unnecessary wars.94 As to the account of Eusebius,95 we may wonder how it happened that he presents the founding of Aelia Capitolina not as a cause but rather as one of the consequences of the Bar Kokhba War. In this case, we do not have to wonder about the source he relied on, because he himself discloses his name, Ariston of Pella. About Ariston and his literary work we know almost nothing. That he must have lived at Pella, one of the cities of the Decapolis, east of the river Jordan, is clear from his very name, but as for his time, we have only the suggestion of Bovon and Duffy, that he may have flourished in the first half of the second century CE.96 Relying on the late testimony of Maximus the Confessor, Ariston is often considered as the author of the Altercatio Iasonis et Papisci (Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus), an early, if not the very first, example of polemical literature against the Jews,97 which was relatively popular in the second, third, and fourth 92

 See above, 26-28, 31-38.  See above, 43-45. 94  See Madsen (2019), 111-113. 95  An earlier version of this section has appeared in Ben Zeev Hofman (2019a), 119-128. 96  Bovon and Duffy (2012), 459, note 9. 97  Concerning the beginning of the Adversus Iudaeos literature, Stroumsa (1996), 18 observes that polemics was the literary reflection of the conflictual relationship between competing religious groups, but it served multiple additional purposes since it was not intended only, or even mainly, to convince and convert, but also 93

50

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

centuries.98 This attribution, however, is far from being certain. Maximus the Confessor, who mentions Ariston as the author of the Altercatio, lived as late as the seventh century CE; authors such as Celsus, Origen and Jerome fail to mention the author of the Altercatio, and, finally, Clement of Alexandria attributes it to Luke the Evangelist. The connection between Ariston of Pella and the Altercatio is therefore quite tenuous.99 In any case, one cannot establish whether Eusebius found Ariston’s passage concerning the Bar Kokhba in the Altercatio or in another of his works, perhaps, it has been argued, a historical one.100 In fact, we also cannot establish whether Eusebius read the work written by Ariston or an intermediate source which cited him.101 At least one thing emerges from the account of Eusebius: Ariston had to be a Christian since he displays a Christian perspective. The possibility that he was a Jew, as has been claimed,102 may be safely rejected. His account of the Bar Kokhba War has a marked anti-Jewish character. The leader of the revolt is called “a man who was murderous and a bandit,” “instigator of the Jews’ madness,” and, moreover, it is stated that he finally “paid the penalty he deserved,” all expressions which hardly suit a Jewish perspective. Geiger aptly observes that his attitude reflects not only a Christian stance, but also the general hostile attitude towards the Jews prevailing in the region of the Transjordan where he lived.103 And yet, in spite of the fact that he lived at Pella, which is not far from Judaea, Ariston apparently may not have had firsthand detailed to strengthen the faith and the self-confidence of those who had already converted. On Jewish-Christian polemics in the first centuries CE see also the works cited by Kofsky (1996), 65, note 19. 98  Bovon and Duffy (2012), 459-460. 99  Carriker (2003), 191. 100  See Jacoby’s suggestion quoted by Carriker (2003), 192, note 52. Certainly Ariston may well have written more than one work (see Bruns [1973], 288), but Geiger (2016), 511 is skeptical, since an historical work by a Christian would be rather unexpected and totally unprecedented in the first half of the second century. 101  From Eusebius’ silence about Ariston’s literary work, Bovon and Duffy (2012), 460 infer that he may have had some kind of reservation about it. 102  See Carriker (2003), 192. 103  Geiger (2016), 511.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

51

information of the chronological development of what transpired in Judaea before, during and after the Bar Kokhba War. He may rather have followed his own logical reasoning, deeming it plausible that Hadrian’s order that the Jews were prevented from entering the district round Jerusalem was a punitive measure after the Jewish war had finally been quelled. In fact, this was not necessarily the case.104 The founding of Aelia Capitolina, too, must have appeared to Ariston as a logical consequence of the war, so that he mentions it at the end of his account. Concerning this last piece of information, however, one may wonder whether it was really Ariston who regarded the founding of Aelia Capitolina as a consequence of the war. Some doubt arises from the fact that Eusebius mentions Ariston as his source not at the end of his account of the Bar Kokhba War but rather at some point in the middle, after mentioning the rescript of Hadrian. At this point he states that “Ariston of Pella tells the story,” which may be taken to mean that the account to be ascribed to the work of Ariston is that which is reported until that point. Then, the account goes on and Eusebius offers two more pieces of information, namely, that the city was colonized by foreigners and that the Roman city which afterwards arose changed its name, and in honor of the reigning emperor Aelius Hadrian was called Aelia.105 While the mention of Ariston in the middle of the account may perhaps have been a literary device, it is also not impossible that Eusebius had one or more additional sources (perhaps oral ones?) and that he inserted their testimony at what he deemed to be the best place, at the end of the account where he mentions the consequences of the revolt. In any case, whether he relied on Ariston or on another source, Eusebius’ account suits well the general character of his work, where the theme of the misfortunes of the Jewish people constitutes a constant leitmotif. His main interest obviously focused on Christianity, as we learn from what he writes in the preface of his Historia Ecclesiastica, where he states that his purpose is to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Savior to our own; 104 105

 See below, 77-83.  HE 4, 6, 3-4.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

52

and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.106

However, even a casual reading reveals that this work had many more objectives. In addition to attempting to describe chronologically ‘what actually happened,’ Eusebius also endeavoured to explain what Christianity was and to place it within the general history of mankind.107 In this context, even if the exact proceedings of the Roman and of the Jewish histories were beyond the purpose of his work,108 he was interested in their theological meaning. Eusebius’ apologetic conception of history led him to incorporate the present into an ongoing, biblically grounded demonstratio evangelica. Judging the events of his time from a religious perspective, he used secular history for religious purposes, so that history and politics were assessed from a religious standpoint.109 In this context, Eusebius states that he intends “to recount the misfortunes which came upon the whole Jewish nation because of their plot against our Savior.”110 This explains the reason why he chose to focus particularly on those unfortunate events, liable to be regarded as a divine punishment.111 Such misfortunes were duly deserved by the Jews, he explains, not only for their “plot against our Savior” but also for their later stubborn failure to recognize him as their Messiah.112 Therefore they were punished by the loss of the 106

 HE, 1, 1, 1.  Droge (1992), 492. 108  On Eusebius’ dealings with these histories, see Grant (1979), 81 and Grant (1992), 663-664. 109  See Hollerich (1990), 324. 110  HE, 1, 1, 3. This opening statement, Irshai (2012), 804 points out, can and should be regarded as an understatement, because the Jews, or matters concerning Jews or Judaism, occupy a substantial portion of five out of the ten books of his Historia Ecclesiastica. Eusebius is one of the first ecclesiastic authors to call the Jews kurioktonoi, murderers of the Lord. See also Inowlocki (2006), 134. According to Grant (1980), 97, n. 1, the notion of Jewish ‘plots’ is apparently derived from the Acts of the Apostles. 111  Grant (1992), 661, 663-664. 112  See Fredriksen and Irshai (2006), 982 and Attridge and Hata (1992), 42, who observe that, for Eusebius, the rejection of Christian claims for Jesus by the people of Israel meant the end of their history as God’s chosen. 107

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

53

great priesthood, of the prophecy, of the kingship and then of the Temple113 – where events are mentioned, not only those which followed but also those which preceded the time of Jesus. Eusebius’ negative attitude is well explained by Stroumsa. When Christianity was still a religio illicita, and early Christian intellectuals were striving for intellectual respectability, they were the first to develop a coherent argument about the need for religious tolerance, and hence pluralism. In the fourth century, however, the situation had changed. The conversion of the emperor brought with it the disappearance of religious pluralism, so that in the fourth and fifth century we find a de-legitimization of religious pluralism, and in the context of this revolution in religiosity we must understand the radicalization of anti-Jewish attitudes.114 In the fourth century, the Christian texts which survive show a growing propensity to identify contemporary Jews with the killers of Jesus and to perceive them in sharp contradistinction to both the ancient Hebrews and their spiritual heirs, the Christians, namely, the verus Israel.115 Eusebius subtly distinguishes the Jews from the ancient Hebrews, who had excelled in piety, charity and all the virtues and who are identified as ancestors

113

 Josephus states that the argument that the miseries of the Jews proved the error of their cult had already been used by Apion: “A clear proof, according to him [Apion], that our laws are unjust and our religious ceremonies erroneous, is that we are not masters of an empire, but rather the slaves, first of one nation, then of another, and that calamity has more than once befallen our city” (C. Ap., 2, 125). See Inowlocki (2006), 133-134. On the fate of the Jews in Eusebius’ works, see also Grant (1980), 97-113. 114  According to Ulrich (1999), 146, since Eusebius leaves open the possibility for the Jews to enter the kingdom of God if they espouse Christianity, this means that he was “tolerant towards Jews and Judaism from a theological viewpoint” and did not display anti-Jewish attitudes. Jacobs (2001), 559, however, points out that Ulrich “softens Eusebius’s theological presentation of Jews; he admits that the chastisement of the Jews looms large in Eusebius’s writings, but insists that he takes no ‘malicious joy’ in recounting their miseries as compared, for instance, with Chrysostom.” According to Van den Hoek (2000), 438, Ulrich’s many “apologetic” gestures in defense of Eusebius, stating that although Eusebius appears to be hostile, he is not, remain rather unconvincing: “in my view, it is more realistic to say that if he appears to be, he is – Eusebius’ use of slanderous language is rather revealing in this respect.” 115  Stroumsa (1996), 18-21.

54

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

of the Christians, in fact, as Christian patriarchs themselves.116 For Eusebius, the decline of the Hebrews started with the Law introduced by Moses and its peculiar precepts, which, anyway, Eusebius regards as applying only to the people living in Judaea. In addition to Jews’ alleged crucifixion of Jesus,117 Eusebius accuses the Jews of additional crimes: to have misinterpreted the Scriptures, to have failed to recognize that the prophecies were fulfilled in Christ,118 and to have played a role in the persecutions against the Christians.119 Moreover, the Jews are accused of having dared to rebel against the Roman Empire, an Empire which had a special blessed role, having being chosen by God to enable the spread of Christianity in the world.120 For all these reasons, the Jews were duly punished in the course of their history. Some pertinent examples are provided by Barnes.121 Eusebius interprets the policy of Caligula against the Jews 116  Ulrich (1999), 57-131 and especially 68, convincingly shows that the distinction between ‘Hebrews’ and ‘Jews’ is not strictly chronological, and that the criterion for ‘Hebrewness’ rather appear to be loyalty to scripture and covenant, erudition and learned culture, so that it includes post-Mosaic figures such as King David, the prophets, Aristobulus, Philo, Josephus and Trypho. This may be the reason why Eusebius makes extensive use of their works, albeit in a peculiar way. Inowlocki (2004), 49, observes that by examining the material from the Legatio used by Eusebius one may learn something about his working method: how faithful he can be to a text when it adheres to his purposes, and how manipulative he can be when he uses a text for his own theological and historical views which do not correspond to the ideology of the original author. Paraphrasing, summarizing, citing faithfully or ignoring some parts of the text undeniably constituted important apologetic tools, which enabled Eusebius to build his own picture. On the terminology used by Eusebius concerning the Jews, see Droge (1992), 499, 502; Kofsky (1996), 78; Stroumsa (1996), 8; Inowlocki (2006), 109-131; Inowlocki (2007), 255; Iricinschi (2011), 69-86. 117  HE, 1, 1, 2. 118  See Hollerich (1992), 598; Inowlocki (2006), 135; Hollerich (2013), 643645. 119  On this subject, see Inowlocki (2006), 135. 120  On the role of the Pax Romana in aiding the evangelizing of the empire, see Hollerich (1990), 314, 315, note 30, on the divine punishment of the Jews through the agency of the Roman emperors, and 323, note 61 on Vespasian and Hadrian as God’s agents executing God’s orders and purposes. For a discussion of the extent of Eusebius’ endorsement both to Constantine and to the Roman Empire, see Hollerich (1990), 309-325, Maraval (2001), 75-145 and Hazel (2016), 171-204. 121  Barnes (1981), 135-136.

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

55

as God’s vengeance for their protestation before Pilate122 and emphasizes the riots, the wars and the internecine strife that characterized life in Judaea from the reign of Claudius onwards, until a Roman army captured Jerusalem.123 Eusebius also states that Josephus shows that the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 was a consequence of his execution of James, the brother of John, and adds that even some Jews admitted that the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, was a cause of the siege of Jerusalem.124 Additional punishment visited Jerusalem and the rest of Judaea when the Christian church of Jerusalem deserted it and moved to Pella beyond the Jordan,125 and then came the utter disaster foretold both by prophets and by Jesus himself, namely, the Great War and the destruction of Jerusalem. Thousands of Jews were slaughtered and Judaea was laid waste.126 Quoting Josephus’ description of the famine inside the besieged Jerusalem, Eusebius adds that this was “the reward of the Jews for their wickedness and impiety towards the Christ of God.”127 The misfortunes of the Jews are put in sharp contrast with the success of the Christian Church, as Eusebius points out when introducing his account of the Diaspora Uprisings in Trajan’s days: The teaching and the Church of our Savior flourished greatly and made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the eighteenth year of Trajan’s reign there was another disturbance of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished.128

A similar pattern emerges from the account of the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba War, where he writes: Therefore it says this, ‘Zion shall be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall be as a storehouse of fruit, a prophecy which was only fulfilled after the impious treatment of our Savior. From that time to this, utter

122

 HE, 2, 4-6.  HE, 2, 19-23, 26; 3, 5-8. 124  HE, 2, 10. 125  HE, 3, 5, 3. 126  HE, 3, 5-7. 127  HE, 7, 1. See Grant (1979), 69; idem (1980), 103-111; Hollerich (1992), 599 and Mendels (2001), 295-303. 128  HE, 4, 2, 1. 123

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

56

desolation has possessed the land; their once famous Mount Sion instead of being as once it was, the center of study and education based on the divine prophecies… is a Roman farm like the rest of the country, yea with my own eyes I have seen the bulls plowing there, and the sacred site sown with seed. … So Aquila says ‘Therefore for your sake the land of Zion shall be ploughed, and Jerusalem shall be a quarry of stone’, for being inhabited by men of foreign race it is even now like a quarry, all the inhabitants of the city choosing stones from its ruins…129

The theme of the misfortunes which the Jews incurred in Hadrian’s days is therefore consistent with Eusebius’s general framework, and so is his insistence on the final destruction of the Jews by famine and thirst, the building of a pagan colony in Jerusalem, and Hadrian’s decree according to which “the whole nation (of the Jews) should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district round Jerusalem, so that it could not even see from a distance its ancestral home,” decree which finds support in the archeological excavations.130 Whether relying on Ariston, on another source or, perhaps, on his own understanding, Eusebius’ chronological misplacements of the founding of Aelia Capitolina and of Hadrian’s decree are not accidental. They fit the pattern: Jewish crimes – righteous punishment, which forms a basic and consistent motif of his historical outlook. According to this perspective, for Eusebius the consequences of the Bar Kokhba War, constituted one more manifestation of the divine intervention in human affairs.131 Both Dio and Eusebius, therefore, had their good reasons for presenting the founding of Aelia Capitolina as they did. As for the reason underlying the new foundation, Eusebius presents it as a due punishment for the war waged by Bar Kokhba, while Dio, at least in the form in which his work reaches us through Xiphilinus’ summary, does not tackle the question of what may have been the cause which led to the founding of the colony.  Dem. Ev., 8, 3, 10-12.  HE, 4, 6, 1-4. See below, 77-83. 131  On the influence of Origen on Eusebius regarding the fate of the Jews, see Grant (1979), 78; Kannengiesser (1992), 435-466 and Ulrich (1992), 543-562. On the role of the Jews in history, see also Ulrich (1999), 146-154. 129 130

A DATE FOR THE FOUNDING OF AELIA CAPITOLINA

57

In order to understand the background to the founding of Aelia Capitolina, therefore, other paths should be explored, such as the context of Hadrian’s general building policy in the Eastern Mediterranean and, also, the range of the different reasons to be found behind the Roman government’s decisions to found new colonies from the time of Augustus onwards.

2

WHAT MAY HAVE PROMPTED HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND A ROMAN COLONY IN JERUSALEM? The founding of Aelia Capitolina is often considered in the context of Hadrian’s general provincial policy,1 which was altogether characterized by an impressive building activity.

OF

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN THE CONTEXT HADRIAN’S IMPRESSIVE BUILDING ACTIVITY

In contrast with that of his predecessor, Trajan, who aimed at enlarging the borders of the Empire by conquering and annexing vast territories through a series of wars, Hadrian put an end to the expansion of the Roman conquests and rather pursued a consistent policy of integration of the various provinces in the Roman Empire by different means, such as the strengthening of the ties of local managements with the central government, impressive building projects and the creation of new municipia and colonies. His famous travels through the provinces, too, were meant to enhance the control of provincial administration, to protect the limes and to make troop organization more efficient. His goal was to establish a new pax augusta, founded primarily on the political and cultural assimilation of the provinces, which would involve not only military and administrative but also cultural measures. The significance of the provinces is also reflected in the relief which appears in the Hadrianeum in Rome built by Antoninus Pius, which displays the personifications of the various provinces. Cancik observes that their faces bear classical physiognomy, smooth and young, and not old, rough and twisted like those of barbarians, but it should also be noticed that the figures are connected to each other by weapons and trophies, which draws attention 1

 Labbé (2012), 459.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

60

to the fact that, after all, these countries had been subdued by the Roman power.2 Quite obviously, in the Eastern part of the Empire Hellenization turned out to be a useful means for carrying out this project, where Hellenization meant encouraging a ‘Greek’ life through the building of ‘Greek’ cities.3 This, for example, was the case of the founding of Antinoopolis in Egypt in the area of Fayum, where the Greek element was absent. Zahrnt points out that it was part of Roman municipal policy in the provinces to encourage the leading circles in the cities to hold municipal posts, to acquire Latin civitas and thus to strengthen loyalty to Rome.4 Hadrian was involved in the local affairs of an extraordinarily great number of cities which were positively affected by his personal attention, which accounts for the ancient acclaim for his civic munificence.5 From the very beginning of his reign, he pursued an impressive building policy, enhancing his reputation as a benefactor of cities and tireless builder and restorer,6 so that Pausanias portrays him as an emperor ‘who showed the utmost honor to the deity, and provided outstandingly for the happiness of his various subjects.’7 The largest category of Hadrian’s urban benefactions was that of material changes to the urban structures and territories of cities: new buildings and reconstructions, completions, architectural enhancement and decoration of older edifices; engineering projects, such as measures for flood control and aqueducts, harbor works, city walls, squares and grain markets, which were often judged the most magnificent of Roman works and the greatest demonstration of Roman might; buildings serving spectacle and leisure; temples, shrines, and tombs.8 2

 Cancik (1997), 136-138.  Ziosi (2018), 133, 140. 4  Zahrnt (1988a), 704. See also pp. 685-702 on the features of this Hellenistic town, its constitution and its privileges. On the importance of the provinces in Hadrian’s policy, see also Mor (2016), 107-108. 5  Boatwright (2000), 5. 6  See Tsafrir (2003), 33. 7  Pausanias, 1, 5, 5. 8  This, for example, was the case of the renovation of Pompey’s ruined tomb at Mons Casius near Pelusium in Egypt, which, Boatwright (2000), 138-140 suggests, probably also betrayed political intents: to reaffirm the hero status of Pompey, who was revered for settling the eastern Mediterranean, and to restore the image of 3

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

61

The impressive list of his accomplishments in the East is instructive for understanding the background of the founding of Aelia Capitolina. In Cyrenaica, Hadrian paid for the reparation of a considerable number of public monuments and temples which had been damaged in the course of the Jewish uprisings at the end of Trajan’s reign, so that Imperial coins call him ‘the restorer of Libya.’9 In Syria, where some years earlier an earthquake had caused significant damages, Hadrian took care of public baths, of an aqueduct and of ‘a very elegant temple of Trajan’ at Antioch, and of ‘a theatre of the springs’ and a shrine of the nymphs at Daphne.10 Nicomedia and Nicaea, too, were rebuilt with lavish donations from Hadrian, as later chroniclers record, and inscriptions in his honor above the gates of Nicaea confirm.11 The imperial benefactions to Bithynia were to be commemorated in coin issues registering his advent and calling him ‘restorer’ of the province.12 In the Troad, too, Alexandria was to honor Hadrian as restitutor, and in Asia, Apollonia and Miletopolis also probably benefited from Hadrian’s presence in the area, since they both called him ‘Saviour and Founder.’13 It is no accident that an impressive number of inscriptions attribute to him the titles ktistes14 and pater patriae.15 In Greece, the road from Megara to Corinth, formerly passable only by foot, was widened by Hadrian so that chariots could drive along it in opposite directions, and Hadrian may indeed have issued an edict ordering road improvement all over Achaia and Macedonia. At Epidaurus, the city erected a statue to him calling him “its savior Roman supremacy in a region which had been convulsed by the Jewish revolt at the end of Trajan’s reign. 9  See Pucci Ben Zeev (2005), 6-13 and Ziosi (2020), 239-248, who points out that the initiative of the works was probably to be ascribed to the governor of the province. 10  Birley (1997), 153. 11  See Mitchell (1987), 352-353. 12  Birley (1997), 157 and 335, note 17. 13  Birley (1997), 164. 14  See Erkelenz (2002), 61-77. On the titles ktistès, which insists on the material building, and oikistès, which rather refers to the act of populating a settlement, see Follet (1992), 241-254. 15  Eck (1982), 217-229.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

62

and benefactor” and began a new era in the local calendar in his honor.16 At Argos, Hadrian took care of a new aqueduct and of the restoration of the theatre, and benefits were conferred also to Tegea, which called him ‘savior and founder,’ and revised its calendar to start a new era from the date of Hadrian’s arrival.17 At Sparta, Hadrian took care of a new aqueduct, and a whole series of altars has been found which honor Hadrian as ‘savior founder and benefactor.’18 The same words appear in an inscription from Mealopolis, in which the inhabitants honored him as ‘savior and benefactor of the world and founder of their own city,’19 and a new aqueduct and baths were also rebuilt by Hadrian at Corinth.20 Special attention was paid to the temples. At Mantinea Hadrian ordered the building of a new temple of Poseidon the Lord of Horses, the city’s chief deity;21 at Cyzicus, which had been ravaged in a recent earthquake, the vast temple of Zeus, begun three hundred years earlier by the kings of Pergamum, had never been completed, and Hadrian undertook its completion in such a way that it was later to be called one of the seven wonders of the world.22 As well as this great undertaking, Cyzicus evidently gained other marks of imperial favor, which explains why the city took the name of Hadriane and started athletic contests named Hadriania. A temple of Demeter, too, first attested in the city’s coins in his reign, presumably owed at least its completion to him. Parium took the name Hadriana and Hadrian is called its ‘founder.’23 At Pergamum, a temple of Trajan was to be turned into a shrine for Trajan and Hadrian together, their colossal statues, well over twice life-size, seated on either side of the inner cella. At Smyrna, a colossal sum of money was disbursed for the 16

 Birley (1997), 178.  Birley (1997), 180. 18  Birley (1997), 180-181. 19  Birley (1997), 181. 20  Pausanias, 2, 3, 5 and Birley (1997), 339, note 13. 21  Pausanias, 8, 10, 2 writes that about this sanctuary he can write only what he has heard, namely, that Hadrian, “set overseers over the workmen to make sure that nobody might look into the old sanctuary or move a single stone from its ruins, ordering them to build the new temple all round it.” See Birley (1997), 339, note 7. 22  Aelius Aristides, Oration 27, emphasizes the beauty that exceeds the size, the expenditure of time and money, and the engineering equipment and transport. See DeLaine (2002), 205-230. 23  See Birley (1997), 164. 17

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

63

construction of a grain-market and of a gymnasium grander than any other in the province, and also for a temple of Zeus high up above the Gulf. Smyrna was granted a second temple, and the new imperial cult was, of course, of Hadrian himself. A twenty-four strong choir was formed to hymn the god Hadrian and the grateful city duly called itself Hadriane.24 At Rhodes, Malalas tells us that Hadrian organized the re-erection of the Colossus, which had been toppled by an earthquake three hundred years earlier,25 and implemented reforms and building works at Megara make it clear why an inscription from the late 130 calls Hadrian “founder, lawgiver benefactor and fosterer.” In Athens, Hadrian opened a colossal building program: the final stage of a vast temple of Olympios Zeus in the south-east corner of the city, close to the river Ilissus. Its construction had begun nearly seven hundred years earlier by the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus. After four hundred years, Antiochus IV Epiphanes had taken the work a stage further, but the work had ceased on Antiochus’ death, with the marble shrine still only half built. In the time of Augustus all the client kings planned jointly to finish the temple, but the project was not realized. Now Hadrian launched the final stage of building, the erection of a vast enclosure around the temple,26 and, moreover, built a new aqueduct leading from Mount Parnes: it was the first time that water had been brought to the city from an external source since the days of Pisistratus.27 No wonder he was elected archon eponymus and as such was honored with a statue in the theatre of Dionysius.28 The fact that an impressive number of provincial settlements scattered in Europe, in Asia and in Africa called themselves Hadriane, Hadriania, Hadriani and Hadrianopolis,29 is meaningful but should not mislead us. In many cases, these were not new settlements but

24

 Birley (1997), 170.  Birley (1997), 173. 26  Birley (1997), 183 and 340, note 17. 27  Birley (1997), 183-184. 28  Birley (1997), 63-64. 29  The spreading of these settlements is impressive, covering Europe (in Albania, in Turkey, in Macedonia), Asia (in Mysia, Lydia, Phrygia, in Caria, Pisidia, Lycia, Cilicia, Paphlagonia, and also in Pontus and in Syria) and Africa (in Tunisia and in Libya). See Birley (1997), 162-164 and 336, note 5. 25

64

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

rather expansion of existing ones, which were chosen for strategic or political motives.30 The aim of integrating the various provinces was also achieved by the improvement of the status of provincial settlements31 and by the creation of new municipalities and new colonies. Even if eleven colonies are often attributed to Hadrian,32 Zahrnt aptly points out that at close scrutiny their number may be limited to two only, Aelia Mursa and Aelia Capitolina.33 More numerous were Hadrianic municipia, most of which were not new entities, with citizens whom the Roman government settled on appropriated land that had formerly been unoccupied or whose former inhabitants had been displaced, but were created by administrative fiat from Rome. A stroke of the pen, so to speak, was often responsible for changing, or sometimes simply ratifying, a city’s internal juridical and political organization, as well as its relationship to the central power of Rome.34 In Pannonia, the municipia created by Hadrian on the Danube (Carnuntum, Aquincum35 and Viminacium) put the final touches to urban development near the legionary fortresses begun under the Flavians or even earlier.36 In addition, a number of communities in the interior of Pannonia became municipia at the time: Bassiana and Cibalae in the south of the Lower province, between the rivers Save and Danube; in Pannonia Superior Mogentiana, Municipium 30  In the case of Hadrianopolis in Libya, for example, pottery evidence suggests that the settlement was created on a smaller, pre-existing site, to identify with today’s Driana before its relocation a kilometer away in the Italian period. The site, halfway between Berenice and Teucheira, may have been chosen so that its veteran settlers could easily control the two cities, formerly with strong Jewish populations. See Jones and Little (1971), 67. As for Antinoopolis, built on the east bank of the Nile at the foot of the hill upon which the village of Besa was seated, it had practical advantages, such an excellent harbor and a temple of Ramses II. See Boatwright (2000), 190-191. 31  Stratonicea, for example, was given the status of a city and the name Hadrianopolis, and a few years later the people of the city honored him as their founder with the name Zeus the Hunter (Cynegesius). See Birley (1997), 166. 32  Boatwright (2000), 36. 33  For a list of the coloniae mistakenly attributed to Hadrian, see Zahrnt (1988), 248-249. 34  Boatwright (2000), 36. 35  On the inner structure of the fortress in Aquincum, see Németh (1984), 144. 36  See Mócsy (1974), 138-139.

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

65

Iasorum, Salla and perhaps Halicanum and Mursella.37 As for their status, municipia and coloniae alike were generally autonomous in internal affairs, partly in compensation for supplying men for armed service.38 The offer of rights and privileges must have been an integrative force and an incentive for loyalty.39 In changing their status and honoring simple townships with civic rank, Belayche points out, Hadrian favored within the population loyal behavior and ‘a passion’ for the dominant culture, and at the same time promoted an urban network which secured Roman order in an East coveted by enemies within and without.40 No doubt, as Birley notes, the impetus thus given to ‘romanization’ was very striking.41 Of course, in all these cases of construction, embellishment and repairs, some caution is recommended in the interpretation of the epigraphical material, and the case of buildings for which the emperor took responsibility should be distinguished from that of those that were simply erected during his principate.42 Isaac observes that in the eastern provinces there are not many buildings that can with certainty be attributed to Hadrian’s benefactions. Historians and archaeologists, he argues, too easily believe that every building on which an emperor’s name was inscribed had been paid for by him. On the contrary, there are inscriptions which dedicate a building to an emperor while specifically mentioning that the costs had been defrayed by a private person, as in the case of the bridge on the Tagus at Alcantara, which had been built by the contribution of a few Lusitanian communities, and had been dedicated to Trajan.43 Generally speaking, he points out, even when an emperor paid for a building project in a city, this does not necessarily mean that he either initiated or actively supported it. It is merely proof of a successful request for

37

 Birley (1997), 90.  Boatwright (2000), 36-37. 39  Mehlman (2014), 20. 40  Belayche (2001), 70-71. 41  Birley (1997), 89-90. MacMullen (1959), 208, observes that “sometimes sheer arrogance was the moving force, as in Nero’s attempt to cut the isthmus of Corinth; sometimes the restlessness born of uncontested power; sometimes a wish to buttress the dynasty by a kind of palpable propaganda.” 42  Mitchell (1987), 333 and 343-344. 43  Isaac (1992), 352. 38

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

66

aid.44 And yet, one should not forget the testimony of the HA, which states that Hadrian built public buildings in all places and without number, but he inscribed his own name on none of them except the temple of his father Trajan. At Rome he restored the Pantheon, the Voting-enclosure, the Basilica of Neptune, very many temples, the Forum of Augustus, the Baths of Agrippa, and dedicated all of them in the names of their original builders.45

As for the reasons which prompted this building activity,46 public utility and practical advantages, it appears, were seemingly combined with prestige for the benefactor.47 Municipal building patronage by an emperor provided employment for local contractors and workers, while leaving a permanent mark on the city thus favored. The emperor thus simultaneously garnered contemporary acclaim and built up his future reputation. The two largest categories, utilitarian constructions and religious edifices, reveal both Hadrian’s adherence to the principle that Roman emperors built for the welfare of their subjects, and his particular understanding of his duty. His drainage schemes, aqueducts, roadwork, and similar work extended the practical benefits of Roman rule while providing an infrastructure that united the far-flung Roman empire relatively well for a preindustrial economy. The extant epigraphical material gives the impression that Hadrian’s temples and the restorations, completions, and embellishments impressed cities’ sacred landscapes with the image of an allpowerful emperor, even as they more simply substantiated the imperial presence, particularly in the Greek East. In Hadrian’s day, religion was inseparable from Roman politics, culture, society, even economy. More than other emperors of the first two centuries, Hadrian seems to have viewed religion as a unifying force,48 and in this context one should mention the importance accorded to the cult of Roma Aeterna49 and Hadrian’s foundation at Athens of the Panhellenion, a religious 44

 Isaac (1992), 359.  HA, Hadr., 19, 9-10. 46  See the evaluation of Le Glay (1976), 357-360 and that of Mitchell (1987), 357. 47  Mitchell (1987), 334. 48  Boatwright (2000), 143. 49  See Mols (2003), 458-465. 45

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

67

league of Greek cities which functioned as a cultic community for the worship of its founder, namely, Hadrian himself. One of its purposes, it appears, was the promotion of Greek loyalty to Rome,50 and the nature of this institution may be best interpreted within the context of the contemporary overlap between political and cultural activity, and proves itself to be an instrument of Hadrian’s wish to unify the Empire.51 The extent to which the cult of Hadrian was practiced shows that it was not merely an accessory but rather an essential content of the Panhellenion. Indeed, centers of the imperial cult proliferated both in Italy and in the provinces,52 perhaps also because designation as the provincial seat of imperial cult promised more economic benefits. In addition to sponsoring festivals and designating individual cities as neocoros, Hadrian built, restored, or embellished numerous temples and shrines that are more or less obviously connected with the imperial cult.53 It has been argued that among many complex motives, Hadrian’s willingness to accept divine honors and his encouragement of Panhellenism had the common purpose of consolidating the empire, for which purpose the cult of Jupiter/Zeus and of his person had been accorded a unifying role.54 Hadrian, therefore, would have been a Hellenist who adopted the notion of a unified and peaceful Roman empire in which the provinces were components of an integrated commonwealth as a new Greco-Roman civilization ruled by him,55 and this, in turn, it has been argued, would have served the interest of the provinces themselves.56

50

 See Willers (1990). On the peculiar conception of Greek ethnic identity expressed through the Panhellenion, see Romeo (2002), 21-40. 51  The cult of Hadrian was meant to extend not only to the city of Athens, but to the entire Greek East. See Thornton (1975), 433-434 and Spawforth and Walker (1985), 78. According to Willers (1989), 9, this cult was meant to extend to the entire world. See also Willers (1990). 52  See Den Boer (1955), 123-144 and Witulski (2010), 91-139. 53  Benjamin (1963), 57; Boatwright (2000), 136-137. 54  Thornton (1975), 433-434; Mor (2016), 109. 55  Boatwright (1987), 238; Tameanko (1999), 19. 56  Mor (2016), 112. Bazzana (2010), 98-99, claims that the attempt to create a communal space for different deities and rituals could offer a great opportunity for implementing, at the very same time, the representation of power and the power of representation.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

68

Seen in this perspective, Hadrian’s founding of Aelia Capitolina would not attest to anti-Jewish intentions, but would rather stem from technical and logistic considerations. Smallwood observes that since benefaction was the keynote of his provincial tours, Hadrian’s purpose, however misguided, is likely to have been to benefit the Jews by restoring their devastated city,57 and Bowersock, too, states that the transformation of the city into a colonia would have been a natural part of Hadrian’s tour of Judaea.58 Hadrian’s positive intentions are underlined by Schäfer, who regards the founding of Aelia Capitolina as welcomed by Hellenistic and pro-Roman elements within the Jewish population,59 and Tameanko, too, argues that Hadrian probably thought he was doing the Judaeans a political and economic favor.60 Tsafrir points out that as a neo-classicist builder, Hadrian may have believed that this enterprise would appease the Jews and earn their praise,61 and Bazzana claims that this project would have enabled the emperor to reward his supporters within Judaea, integrating them in the Greco-Roman world.62 As Ciecielag observes, the idea that the establishment of Aelia Capitolina should be viewed as an act of hostility towards the Jews is in conflict with Hadrian’s entire social policy. The emperor viewed himself above all as a restorer and benefactor of cities.63

Bieberstein, too, suggests that the founding of Aelia Capitolina should be seen as part of an effort as restitutor orbis to reorganize the structure of the provinces near the frontiers,64 and Mor endorses the view that Hadrian crafted his general policy to serve the good of the Empire and of provincia Judaea as a part of that empire.65

57

 Smallwood (1976), 433.  Bowersock (1980), 134-138. 59  Schäfer (1990), 296. 60  Tameanko (1999), 21. 61  Tsafrir (2009), 76. 62  Bazzana (2010), 109. 63  Ciecielag (2006), 108-109. 64  Bieberstein (2007), 144. 65  Mor (2016), 112. 58

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

69

OTHER REASONS UNDERLYING THE FOUNDING OF THE ROMAN COLONIES At this point, however, one should remember that the establishment of Roman colonies was not a building project only. They not only attested to the presence of the power of Rome but had also the task of ensuring the security and the stability of Rome, allowing the control of vast territories and providing for the exploitation of their resources.66 They often also had specific purposes, which obviously differed from case to case: the need to settle veterans and Italians who did not have lands, for example;67 the desire to create clienteles,68 and the wish to rebuilt cities which had been destroyed, as was the case of Corinth and Carthage, which may have boosted a process of urbanization which in turn might have played a role in the pacification of conquered areas. The desire to induce discharged soldiers of the legions and other troops in and near the province to settle there, too, may have prompted the creation of a new colony, since they and later their descendants were considered to be future foci of loyalty in the midst of the country.69 The more so, since, in tense situations, the colonies played a defensive role, acting as secure points of support. Of this last type of colony, several examples are provided by Isaac. Caesar established colonies garrisoning the south coast of the Propontis and the Black Sea, and the chain of Augustan veterancolonies along the coast of Mauretania were probably meant to protect communications on the North African coast. In Syria, Augustus planted a veteran colony at Berytus, which must have served to control the territory of the Itureans, who were notorious brigands. In Pisidia, a group of colonies, founded at the same time, threw a cordon round the whole of the country as part of a program meant to “tame and civilize” the entire region. Nineteen years after the foundation of these colonies, an extensive road-network was constructed linking them. This, it appears, was part of the preparation for the 66

 Dabrowa [2003] (2020), 98.  See the sources cited by Sartre (2005), 119-121. Keppie (2000), 301, observes that by the Late Republic, colonisation had become a vehicle for the larger-scale resettlement of both urban and rural poor, who gained a plot of land, and the opportunity for a fresh start in life. 68  Sartre (2005), 121-122. 69  Isaac (1992), 324; Zahrnt (1991), 482. 67

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

70

Homanadensian war, in which Sulpicius Quirinius subjugated a rebellious tribe which hindered communications and the development of the area. The colonies were meant to garrison the area and to serve as a base of operations, and the roads, obviously, made the conquest easier. In Numidia, the nomadic Musulamii were subjugated after the establishment of the colony of Thamugadi, after road building and the creation of municipia at Calama and Thubursicu. In Judaea, where during the reign of Claudius a series of popular uprisings of increasing violence had taken place, veterans of four Syrian legions were settled in a new colony at Ptolemais. The site was well chosen, just outside the province but at the ‘gateway’ to it. It assured the Romans of a convenient spot for their rear-headquarters and marshalling area in any action against Judaea.70 This may also be the case of Caesarea, where Vespasian established a Roman colony after the Great War, and probably settled veterans there.71 Economic, social and military motives were not mutually exclusive. So, the chain of colonies which Rome established from Dyrrhachium to Corinth via Bouthrotos, Photice and Patras allowed for the control of an essential maritime route between Italy and the Aegean world, to create a network of ports which constituted points of support for the Roman business population but also centers of military supplies in case of need, repopulating desolate areas and at the same time favoring the installation of Italians who did not have lands and veterans, on whose loyalty they could count. The success of the principal ports of this chain (Dyrrhachium, Patras and Corinth) allowed for the creation of solid centers of economic development for the whole area.72 In many, perhaps most, cases, not only political and strategical considerations played a role, but also cultural goals, as the wish to make the colony and its territory an agent of romanization, when by this term, Sartre points out, one may mean not only politic domination, but also the diffusion of economic or social models and the spread of cultural traits, customs and manners.73 70

 Isaac [1980-81] (1998), 92-93.  See Cotton and Eck (2002), 383-384. 72  Sartre (2005), 147. 73  Sartre (2001), 119-127. Alföldi (1995), 26, too, points out that romanization included not only military and politic measures, but also all the other forms, both 71

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

71

Several cases are also attested, where the founding of a colony is interpreted as having had the purpose of punishing the local inhabitants. Sartre observes that we would like to know the reasons which led to choose Heraclea Pontica, Lampsacus and Parion as sites of Roman colonies, but there is little doubt that there was the will to punish: the colons of Heraclea occupied a part of civic territory. At Ptolemais, it is not impossible that the creation of the colony had unfavorable consequences for a part of the inhabitants, who were obliged to leave the town: an inscription from Ptolemais mentions a village named Nea Kome which may have been a new creation to shelter the old inhabitants dispossessed.74

A punished city could not escape the grabbing of its territory, which became the property of the Roman people. Punishment also followed failure of payment of taxes, as in the case of Buthrotum in South Albania, or cities’ defections and rebellions. Even when the local inhabitants were allowed to remain, they lost their civic rights in the moment in which the colony was founded.75 Of course, in the case of Aelia Capitolina several of these factors may be found behind Hadrian’s decision to found the new colony. As in the case of Carthage and Corinth, Hadrian may have desired to rebuild a renowned city which had been destroyed, while at the same time Aelia Capitolina would provide a better status to the canabae of the legio X Fretensis, which had been located in Jerusalem since the end of the Great War in 70.76 In this regard, Dabrowa points out that after the Great War, agricultural areas in the surroundings of Jerusalem had been confiscated by Vespasian and had been allotted to veterans of the legio X Fretensis, as was the case at Ammaus, on the planned and spontaneous, of the Roman influence on the thought and the action, namely, on the politic organization, on the productive system, on the social order and the spiritual life of the country. Dobson and Mann (1973), 196, however, argue that the colonies were too few and too scattered to suggest that they might have formed an element in any comprehensive policy of Romanization. 74  Sartre (2005), 127. 75  In this case, two categories were found, the coloni and the incolae. See Sartre (2005), 128-129. 76  This was the main reason for the founding of Aelia Capitolina also according to Gregorovius (1883), 484 and Bernini (2019), 561. See also Labbé (2012), 459 and Brizzi (2015), 322. On the organization of the canabae and their relations with the military camp of the legions, see Bérard (1992), 80, 88, 90.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

72

main Jaffa to Jerusalem highway, which was not formally a colony but came to have this title locally.77 These settlements were administrated by the provincial legate, but did not have formal legal status, and the communication between them was probably complex. Aelia Capitolina settled all these administrative, social, and fiscal problems: all local matters were now under colonial administration, which allowed it to be an efficient means for the achievement of political aims. The founding of Aelia Capitolina, Dabrowa concludes, may therefore also have been meant to address these administrative issues, creating some form of organized social life and the exploitation of agricultural resources. In particular, the new colony may have been an effective legal solution to the issues regarding wives illegally taken and children illegally begotten by legionary soldiers during service, as might be inferred from what had transpired a few years earlier in Egypt, where the veterans of two legions requested, and obtained from Hadrian, extension of the Roman citizenship to their illegally begotten children?78 Whether Hadrian may have also intended to provide new recruits for the Roman army in the future is disputed. Mócsy suggests that Hadrian may have wished to equalize the number of colonies in the province with the number of legions stationed there and to provide a new recruitment area for the provincial armies.79 He stresses the importance of the veteran colonies in the development of recruits, especially in the eastern provinces, where a lack of Roman communities, particularly veteran colonies, was combined with the fact that few men from the countries of the west may have been willing to serve there. For a time, Asia Minor had acted as a central source for all the eastern provinces, but it had soon been necessary to resort to local sources. It therefore appears that in spite of the disadvantages which attached to legionary service, a large number of legionaries’ sons did enlist, and they came to form an important element in the 77

 Possibly, Keppie (2000), 311, points out, the settlement was designed to cater for veterans who had fought with this legion in the Jewish War, and were anxious or prepared to remain close to it in their retirement rather than return to the former province of Syria. 78  My warmest thanks to Prof. Edward Dabrowa for calling my attention to this aspect of the founding of Aelia Capitolina. See also Cotton Paltiel and Ecker (2019), 682-683. 79  Mócsy (1974), 118.

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

73

composition of the legions. But just as the number of recruits from these sources declined in the second century, so also apparently declined the number of veteran colonies: this, according to Mann, may well explain Hadrian’s founding of two veteran colonies, in Judaea and in Pannonia Inferior80 – a possibility, however, which is questioned by Isaac and Zahrnt, who point out that the recruitment issue may have been a consequence of the founding but not its cause.81 Practical, cultural and political purposes may well have gone hand in hand, since the building of a new pagan city in Jerusalem was consistent with Hadrian’s actions to promote Hellenistic culture and affirm Roman dominance throughout the Empire.82 The creation of a new center of Roman influence would have strengthened the Roman cultural way of life in Judaea,83 helping to keep tight control in a place where loyalty to the Roman government was problematic, at the least. This may have been particularly urgent in order to control the banditry that seems to have been endemic in the area, both before and after Hadrian’s time,84 and, moreover, a tense situation may have still prevailed at the time in the country, even if it did not reach the dimension of an armed conflict.85 A context of this kind may well answer the question of Zahrnt – why Hadrian did not choose to found here a municipium86 – or that raised by Isaac – why Hadrian decided to found a colony settled by veterans rather than a Greek polis.87 Cultural and strategical intents may have been present at one and the same time. Stinespring argues that Hadrian reflected upon the loyalty of the people of Gerasa, Petra, Tiberias, Caesarea, and Gaza. He also recalled the fact that these places had 80

 Mann (1983), 64-65.  See Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 104, note 83 and Zahrnt (1991), 480, note 45. 82  See Mehlman (2014), 22. 83  Weikert (2016), 275. 84  Isaac [1984] (1998f), 132-134 and 152, where he speaks of internal social and economic unrest. Whether Hadrian may have also wanted to punish the JudeoChristians, as Golan (1986), 226-239 suggests, is doubtful. See Zahrnt (1991), 477; Belayche (2001), 118; Labbé (2012), 460 and Zissu (2016), 399. 85  See below, 148-150. 86  Zahrnt (1991), 480. 87  See Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 102. 81

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

74

colonnaded streets, baths, temples, and the other external appurtenances of Roman culture. Perhaps the very acts of looking at classical architecture and observing sacrifices to Jupiter would eventually give even this stiff-necked people of Jerusalem a Roman soul.88

Hadrian’s ultimate goal – peace – was to be assured, it is claimed, by making Judaea a normal part of the pagan world, turning Jerusalem into a miniature Rome, settled by gentiles and devoted to Roman religious rites. The new Jerusalem was meant to be a pagan city like all the other cities of the Empire, with its pagan cults and ceremonies89 – an integral part of the surrounding world. This may have seemed to Hadrian particularly urgent in view of the Jewish Diaspora Uprisings, which had not yet been completely quelled when he was proclaimed emperor in the August of 117, and which seem to have had an echo, albeit in different terms, also in Judaea.90 It is therefore no accident that the Jewish Diaspora Uprisings are often identified as one of the main reasons behind the founding of Aelia Capitolina. As far as the Romans were concerned, Goodman argues, disaffection among Jews in one part of the empire necessarily threw under suspicion those in another:91 Aelia Capitolina was envisaged by Rome from the beginning as a means to punish and control what they saw as a stubbornly rebellious nation…. It is self-evident that the Roman state could change its attitude to the Jewish homeland in the light of disturbances in the diaspora. This would not be the first time that Roman policy towards the Jews approached the problem of diaspora Jews alongside the problem 88

 Stinespring (1939), 363. See also Gregorovius (1983), 492.  See Boatwright (2000), 201, note 163 and Goodman (2007), 484-487. On the importance attached by Hadrian to Roman cults, see Mols (2003), 458-465 and Friedheim (2007), 125-152 on the Greco-Roman pantheon of Aelia Capitolina. 90  See below, 100-103. Birley (1997), 230, observes that the havoc and destruction that these disturbances had created in the Cyrenaica, in Egypt and in Cyprus, not to mention the Jews’ aid to the Parthians in Mesopotamia, would surely have had a lasting impact on Hadrian’s thinking. See also Gregorovius (1893), 492. 91  Goodman (2007), 480-481. Such a global outlook is already found in the middle of the first century BCE, when Cicero (Pro Flacco, 28, 69 = Stern [1974], 196-201, no. 68) implicitly accused the Jews of Rome of the opposition displayed by Judaean Jews vis-à-vis Pompey’s conquest of the country. See Ben Zeev (2017), 108, 118. 89

HADRIAN’S DECISION TO FOUND AELIA CAPITOLINA

75

of the Jews in their homeland, and vice versa… After the war of 66-70 CE in Judaea, all Jews, irrespective of where they lived and of their legal status, bore the consequences of the war fought by Judaean Jews by being forced to pay the Fiscus Judaicus to the Roman treasury. In Egypt, moreover, minor Jewish disturbances led to Vespasian’s decision to close, and then demolish, the temple of Leontopolis since he ‘was suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution and fearing that they might again collect together in force and draw others away with them.92 … Hadrian’s solution was to ensure that the Jews could never again expect to have a temple on their sacred site in Jerusalem… by founding a miniature Rome on the site of the Jews’ holy city, explicitly intended for the settlement of foreign races and foreign religious rites. Aelia Capitolina was to be the last of the Roman colonies which involved the transplantation of a new population to populate the city. Within Hadrian’s great policy of urban reconstruction, with the foundation of many cities, Aelia Capitolina is unique in its use of the new colony not to flatter but to suppress the natives.93

Indeed, it would appear that an insight of this kind is by no means new. Already back in 1892, Germer Durand points out: L’empire des Césars, pour assurer ses conquêtes, employait divers procédés, suivant les dispositions des cités vaincues ou annexées: quand la soumission avait été facile et l’autorité de Rome acceptée sans trop de résistance, les cités gardaient leur autonomie, leur langue, leurs institutions religieuses, leurs traditions, juridiques ou autres. Si au contraire la lutte avait été vive, la résistance acharnée, alors les habitants, massacrés ou vendus comme esclaves, étaient remplacés par des colonies de vétérans; la cité détruite faisait place à une colonie. Ce fut le sort de Jérusalem.94

92

 “Less noted,” Goodman observes (2003), 27-28, “is the likelihood of a link between Trajan’s suspicion [of a revolt in Judaea] and the causes of the Bar Kochba revolt. No ancient source directly connects the diaspora revolt under Trajan with the outbreak of the Bar Kochba rebellion in Judaea in 132, but that should not inhibit modern historians from doing so… With these events clouding the start of his tenure of the principate, how would one expect Hadrian to treat the Jews?” 93  Goodman (2003), 28-29. Mazor (2007), 4, arrives at the same conclusion, pointing out that as a result of his previous experiences during the Jewish Uprising, Hadrian “set out to ‘re-arrange’ the unstable province.” Against Goodman’s views, see Mor (2016), 124-125. 94  Germer Durand (1892), 371.

76

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Hadrian’s decision to exclude the Jews not only from Aelia Capitolina but also from its surroundings points in the same direction. The Roman decree mentioned by Eusebius is no longer the only testimony of the exclusion of the Jews, not only from the new colony but also from its surroundings. An astonishing surprise is now provided by the archaeological excavations.

3

THE EXCLUSION OF THE JEWS FROM AELIA CAPITOLINA AND ITS SURROUNDINGS Eusebius informs us that Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree (nomou dogmati) and ordinances (diataxesin) the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district around Jerusalem, so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home.1

This passage follows the description of the Bar Kokhba War and its repression by the Roman military forces, so that Hadrian’s decision appears to be a reasonable response to the Jewish rebellion. However, perhaps because of its wording, which, as Harris points out, appears to reflect more an interpretation of passages in the Prophets or in the Psalms than a Roman official decree,2 the very reliability of Eusebius’ testimony has often been called into question.3 Unnecessarily so. A confirmation of its historical credibility is now provided by the archaeological excavations carried out in the Shu’afat neighborhood in north-eastern Jerusalem, on the ancient road to Nablus, 4 km from ancient Jerusalem, under the direction of Debbie Sklar-Parnes (2003-2005) and then of Rachel Bar-Nathan (20062007) on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which revealed the presence of a until then un-known site built after the end of the Great War. A 400-meter-long strip of the settlement was exposed, in which a network of streets and alleys, residential buildings, public buildings were discerned, inhabited by a mixed Roman and Jewish population, as evinced by the presence of both Roman

1

 HE, 4, 6, 3.  See Harris (1926), 201-205. On the different kinds of Hadrian’s decrees – diatagma, epistula, rescriptum, subscriptio, mandatum, decretum – see Boatwright (2000), 27. 3  See for example the works of Marmorstein, Krauss and Rokeah cited by Safrai (1972), 64, note 8. 2

78

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Fig. 15. The Shu’afat site (2005-2006) in the middle of a present-day road north of Jerusalem. Katsnelson (2009), 164, fig. 2. Aerial photo.

bathhouses and Jewish miqva’ot,4 where a unique single-period occupation may be identified on the basis of architecture and archaeological finds.5 The site was abandoned in an organized way: doors were sealed, treasures were buried, many rooms were found completely empty, in others a layer of dust was found on the floor, half a meter high, and walls were found collapsed, which shows that the rooms had been abandoned for a long time before the beginning of the systematic destruction of the settlement.6 The dating of the time when the abandonment of the site took place comes as a total surprise. While the ceramic assemblage indicates a period ranging from the end of the first century to the first quarter of the second century, the morphological development of the types, together with the disc and molded lamps and the hoard of glass, suggest that it should probably be dated to the beginning of the 4  The Jewish presence may also be seen in the fact that blown bowls and beakers of glass compose 80 % of the assemblage found in loco, which is remarkable in light of the small number of clay bowls found there. The preference for glass over pottery may be ascribed, if not to the cheaper price of the glass, to observance of purity laws. See Katsnelson (2009), 164. 5  Katsnelson (2009), 163. 6  Bar-Nathan and Sklar-Parnes (2007), 63.

THE EXCLUSION OF THE JEWS FROM AELIA CAPITOLINA

79

Fig. 16. Shu’afat hypocaust of the bathhouse. Photo Tsila Sagiv.

second century.7 The date may be further narrowed down thanks to the numismatic findings. The last coins found there date from 126/127,8 from 129/130,9 and the last one from 130.10 Both Bar Kokhba’s coins and Roman provincial coins later than 130 are completely absent. It therefore follows that 130 CE may be been taken as the terminus post quem for the abandonment of the site.11 When dealing with the reasons which led to the evacuation of the place, the archaeologists who excavated it suggest four possible reasons for this abandonment.12 One, the inhabitants may have been encouraged to move to Aelia Capitolina for their own safety and comfort – which is obviously plausible in the case of the Romans but not in that of the Jews, who were not allowed to settle in the 7

 Sklar-Parnes, Rapuano and Bar-Natan (2004), 38*-39*.  Bijovsky (2007), 69. 9  IAA 120284, minted at Alexandria. See Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 143. 10  This coin (IAA 120300 = Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky [2018], 140) represents the foundation of Aelia Capitolina. Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 146, point out that from the stratigraphic context of the coin it appears that this type would most likely not have been struck after 130. 11  Katsnelson (2009), 163; Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 144. The site was then reinhabited on a smaller scale in the third and fourth centuries. See Yeger (2016). 12  Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 148. 8

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

80

new colony. The possibility that the Jewish residents left the site in order to join the Bar Kokhba rebels is also problematic, because it applies to men, but not to women and children. The last reason for the abandonment suggested by the archaeologists is the most probable: the Roman government forced Jews living in the Shu’afat-site and other Jewish settlements surrounding Jerusalem to flee. Since the site is close to Tel el-Ful, east of the Roman road connecting Jerusalem to Neapolis, 4 km north of the ancient Jerusalem, and it was abandoned in or not long after 130, the year when Alia Capitolina was founded, it seems both plausible and probable that the abandonment of the site is to be linked to the prohibition to the Jews to live in Jerusalem and its surrounding area mentioned by Eusebius. In this case, the findings at Shu’afat are of the greatest importance because they may be taken to attest to the fact that the prohibition issued by Hadrian did not mean only that the Jews would be prevented to move their residence to Jerusalem and the surrounding area in the future, but it also applied to the Jews who were already living in the area, forcing them to leave their homes. These excavations are historically meaningful also from another point of view. The fact that the site was abandoned in 130 or shortly afterwards, makes it possible that the decree mentioned by Eusebius, prohibiting the Jews to live in Jerusalem and around Jerusalem, was issued at the time of the founding of Aelia Capitolina and not after the repression of the Bar Kokhba War, as Eusebius seems to imply mentioning it at the end of his account of the Bar Kokhba War – a chronological misplacement which may well be explained in the context of Eusebius’ perception of the events of the Bar Kokhba War and of Jewish history as a whole, as seen above.13 The forbidden area seems to have been exceedingly vast. According to Belayche, it was bounded to the north by the frontier with Neapolis and to the east by the Jericho region,14 and Horbury points to three Hadrianic guard-posts, at Beth-El, at Emmaus and at Beth Leqitaia, north, east and south of Jerusalem respectively, which probably kept the borders of an exclusion zone.15 The case of Shu’afat was probably not a single case. It may also be reasonably 13

 See above, 51-52.  See Belayche (2003), 112. 15  Horbury (2014), 402. 14

THE EXCLUSION OF THE JEWS FROM AELIA CAPITOLINA

81

assumed that the decree of expulsion may also have applied to other settlements in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, where evidence has been found of a Jewish population living there in the period between the two wars.16 South of Jerusalem, evidence of Jewish settlements was found at Ramat Rachel, East Talpiot, the Beth Safafa cemetery and Khirbet Beit Arza. East of Jerusalem, objects from the same period were discovered in the subterranean quarry on the slope of the Mount of Olives, and in a burial cave on the Eastern slope of Mount Scopus. In twenty additional burial caves on all sides of the city, evidence was found of continued use, apparently by Jewish families, after the First Jewish War.17 In spite of the doubts raised by Shahar,18 therefore, it appears that some Jews did live in and around Jerusalem after the end of the First War.19 This is confirmed by the archaeological excavations carried out in the southwestern hill of Jerusalem and the bridge along the route connecting the hill with the Temple Mount, which allow for the possibility that the summit of the southwestern hill was indeed inhabited soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70.20 That Jews may have continued living in Jerusalem in spite of the fact that the city had been destroyed to a great extent is not to be seen as an exceptional case. The same also happened in other cities which had been conquered and destroyed by the Romans. Corinth, for example, was destroyed and plundered by Mummius in 146 BCE and the literary sources support the notion of a devastated city, which is substantiated by the archaeological picture: buildings, shrines, and monuments of the Greek period show signs of destruction, dismantling, or lack of use around 146 BCE. However, in the period following the Roman conquest some rebuilding or clean-up activity is also attested, and some continuity of cult places. There were very probably 16  Cotton (2008), 15, too, points out that “a new picture slowly takes shape of continued Jewish presence in satellite settlements after the destruction of the Temple.” 17  Kloner, Klein and Zissu (2017), 131, and 131, notes 7-11. 18  Shahar (2006), 131-146. 19  See Smallwood (1976), 433; Erlich (2002), 112; Kloner and Zissu (2003), 68-69; Horbury (2014), 151 and Weikert (2016), 274. On Jewish pilgrimage after the destruction of the Temple, see Tsafrir (1995), 374 and Friedman (1996), 136. 20  Weksler-Bdolah (2020), 40-42. See also Mazor (2017), 74, note 11.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

82

Corinthians living in the areas outside the centre of the former Greek city and using the farm lands around the Corinthia in that interim period, and Cicero, too, states that he himself saw some inhabitants of Corinth when he visited there in his youth.21 Moreover, an analysis of the objects found in loco provides archaeological evidence to support a view of post-146 BCE Corinth as a place with no civic structure but with a population, some commercial activity, and some foreign interaction by the later decades of the 2nd century BCE. It therefore would appear that Corinth did not remain without any activity in the period from 146 to 44 BCE, when the Roman colony was founded.22 It is not surprising, therefore, that some Jews may have continued to live also in and around Jerusalem after the destruction of 70 CE. As to the question, whether the prohibition from entering Jerusalem and its surroundings was, or was not, thoroughly implemented in the following period, no definite answer seems possible since sources are late, spanning from the fourth and the fifth century CE, and, moreover, they contradict each other. On one hand, a number of deserted settlements are mentioned by Eusebius and by other Christian sources,23 while on the other hand, several passages of the Babylonian Talmud mention a group of sages, R. Meir’s disciples, living in the late second or third century, called the “Holy Congregation in Jerusalem.”24 Oppenheimer25 suggests that during the period of the Severi, when the political position of the Jews had greatly improved, the Roman authorities did not enforce the prohibition, even though it had not been officially rescinded, so that a handful of sages may have been altogether passed unnoticed. This, however, is not the only case one may think of, and it is not impossible that these sages lived elsewhere, while maintaining their original name, ‘Holy Congregation of Jerusalem.’26

 Vidi etiam in Peloponneso, cum essem adulescens, quosdam Corinthios (Tusc. disp. 3, 22.53), probably referring to the years 79-77 BCE. See Wiseman (1979), 491-494 for an excellent assessment of the literary sources on this point. 22  Romano (1994), 62-63. 23  See Horbury (2014), 404-405. 24  See Safrai (1972), 62-78 and Isaac (2010), 23-24. 25  Oppenheimer (2007), 499. 26  On this last possibility, see the works cited by Safrai (1972), 64, note 7. 21

THE EXCLUSION OF THE JEWS FROM AELIA CAPITOLINA

83

All in all, there is no doubt that Hadrian’s decision to transform the Jewish city of Jerusalem into a Roman colony which excluded the local population was a drastic measure which raises queries, the more so since Hadrian is often regarded as one of Rome’s most open-minded rulers. Some understanding of the background of these undertakings may be sought by exploring the situation obtaining both in Rome and in the provinces when Hadrian became emperor in the August of 117.

4

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS PREVAILING AT THE TIME ISSUES AT STAKE AT THE BEGINNING OF HADRIAN’S REIGN A look at the situation prevailing at the time when Hadrian became emperor may be highly instructive for understanding the concerns, priorities and goals of his policy in general and of his decision to found Aelia Capitolina in particular. On August 11, 117, the death of Trajan was announced and Hadrian, who had been adopted by Trajan a few days before, was acclaimed emperor, not by the senate but from his troops in Antioch. His reign opened in circumstances which may be regarded as problematic at the least. Trajan’s ‘letter of adoption,’ signed by his wife Plotina, reached Hadrian in Syria on 9 August 117. On August 11 came another dispatch, announcing Trajan’s death. The news was at once communicated to the troops, who duly acclaimed him as Imperator. Rumors circulated in Rome at the time, and were later reported by Dio/Xiphilinus and by the HA, that his adoption by Trajan had not been lawful, and that Trajan’s death had been concealed for several days in order to allow for Hadrian’s adoption to become public.1 This version of Hadrian’s adoption, which is often endorsed by 1  “Hadrian had not been adopted by Trajan; he was merely […] a companion of his […], and had been assigned to Syria for the Parthian war. Yet he had received no distinguishing mark of favor from Trajan, such as being one of the first to be appointed consul. He became Caesar and Emperor owing to the fact that when Trajan died childless, Attianus, a compatriot and former guardian of his, together with Plotina, who was in love with him, secured him the appointment, their efforts being facilitated by his proximity and by his possession of a large military force. My father, Apronianus, who was governor of Cilicia, had ascertained accurately the whole story […] in particularly stating that the death of Trajan was concealed for several days in order that Hadrian’s adoption might be announced first. This was

86

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

scholars,2 may reflect more malicious gossip than factual reality if Merten and Ziosi are correct in stating that even if the testament of Trajan was signed by Plotina and not by Trajan, it may have been performed vocally in the presence of witnesses, and – this is the main point – the Will may have become legally valid by the assent of the Praetorians, who announced it to the troops.3 In any case, the version offered by Dio and by the HA is of the utmost significance if it may be taken to reflect widespread hearsay hostile to Hadrian at Rome at the time, and not only the malevolent wit of Marius Maximus.4 It is no accident that the reverse of one of the first coins issued by Hadrian had the legend ‘Adoptio,’ and the handing of the globe, symbol of world-rule, by Trajan to Hadrian, which assured the world that he had been legally adopted,5 while on another coin Trajan and Hadrian are portrayed standing and clasping their right hands.6 Ziosi points out that the rushed deification of Trajan and his posthumous triumph celebrated in Rome, too, are to be regarded as forms of legitimation, which shed further light on Hadrian’s early difficulties.7 Within a few days and perhaps even only a few hours of his acclamation, Hadrian gave the order to withdraw from all the new territories conquered by Trajan beyond the Euphrates. All the territory east of the Euphrates was immediately relinquished, as was the Syrian

shown also by Trajan’s letters to the senate, for they were signed, not by him, but by Plotina, although she had not done this in any previous instance” (Dio, 69, 1, 1-4). Similarly, we read in HA, Hadr., 4, 10: “And the statement has even been made that it was not until after Trajan’s death that Hadrian was declared adopted, and then only by means of a trick of Plotina; for she smuggled in someone who impersonated the Emperor and spoke in a feeble voice.” On the legitimacy of Hadrian’s accession to the throne see Meckler (1996), 369-371. 2  Syme (1988a), 571, points out that “one may well suspect that Trajan was no longer among the living when he adopted Hadrian.” See also Birley (1997), 78. Birley (2000), 134 adds that Hadrian’s adoption was, at best, carried out by a dying man and stage-managed by the Empress. 3  Merten (1977), 252-253; Ziosi (2018), 128-129. On the praetorians, see Rocco (2021). 4  On the “purposeful malice” found in Maximus’ biographies of the Antonine emperors, see Syme (1991), 163. 5  RIC II, 338, no. 3. 6  RIC II, 339, no. 2. The need to proclaim the legitimacy of the succession, Birley (1997), 81, observes, is manifest. 7  Ziosi (2018), 129.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

87

pre-desert.8 Dura Europos was abandoned before 30 September 117. In the meantime, war broke out in Dacia.9 As Birley observes, the empire was in a state of disarray not seen since the Year of the Four Emperors and it could easily have turned into a catastrophe.10 The decision to withdraw was certainly a sound one in view of the failure of the Parthian War,11 but the Roman senate seems to have resented Hadrian’s policy as a sharp deviation from that which had been implemented by Trajan.12 Opinion in Italy had fed on a diet of victories, Everitt points out, and as yet had no clear idea that Parthia had not, after all, been conquered. And even though Trajan’s failure was common knowledge in leading circles, the ethos of aggression was too ingrained to accept that the days of imperium sine fine were over.13 The renunciation of Trajan’s achievements – in Dacia, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria – meant a return to the late Augustan policy, which stipulated that the empire should be kept within its natural boundaries, identified with the Rhine, the Danube and the Euphrates.14 Hadrian’s new policy was proclaimed on his coins Concordia, Justitia, Pax and Pietas, all minted in 117,15 but was also liable to be interpreted as an outright denial of Rome’s manifest destiny.16 8  On the reasons which prompted Hadrian’s decision see Mor (2016), 106 and Ziosi (2018), 131-132. 9  See below, 94-95. 10  Birley (1997), 80 points out that “by the time the ship with Trajan’s remains was under sail for Italy, Hadrian will have known the dimensions of the crisis. A century later Marius Maximus rose to Tacitean heights (it may be argued) when summarizing the simultaneous eruption of revolt and invasion which had flared up all around the frontiers. The HA biographer perhaps allowed himself a direct quotation of Maximus’ somber sentences, in a passage which echoes the opening of Tacitus’ Histories.” See also Strobel (2010), 392. 11  See Cizek (1983), 463 and Birley (1997), 75. 12  HA, Hadr., 9, 1-2 suggests that hostility in Rome followed Hadrian’s withdrawal from the provinces conquered by Trajan, but see Syme (1988), 299, n. 19. 13  Everitt (2009), 174. 14  See Fettweis (2018), 127-129. 15  RIC II, 339, no. 4; 340, nos. 9, 14; 341, no. 17; 405, no. 535; 406, no. 540; 407, no. 542 (Concordia); 339, no. 6; 340, no. 11; 341, no. 19 (Iustitia); 339, no. 7; 340, no. 12; 341, no. 21 (Pax); 339, no. 8; 340, no. 13; 341, no. 22 (Pietas), all of them dated 117 CE. 16  According to Fettweiss (2018), 129, Tacitus may well have been speaking indirectly of his own era when he lamented that “mine is an inglorious labour in

88

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Personal worries may have been at work too. The withdrawal from the territories conquered by Trajan directly affected senators by reducing the number of high-ranking administrative posts they could aspire to.17 This may have been the reason why the HA tells us that when he reached Rome, on 9 July 118,18 the goal of Hadrian was “to win over public opinion, which was hostile to him,”19 a hostility which Birley vividly explains: A letter from Attianus urged rapid and ruthless action. Three men were named. If the City Prefect, Baebius Macer, seemed likely to resist confirming Hadrian’s nomination, he should be killed; likewise two prominent exiles, Laberius Maximus… and Crassus Frugi… both languishing on islands. … [as] the HA claims, there was a widespread belief that Trajan had intended to make Neratius Priscus and not Hadrian his successor… Trajan had even once given the impression that he regarded Servianus, Hadrian’s brother-in-law, as a potential successor (Dio, 69, 17, 3).20

Hadrian had also to cope with possible contenders to the throne. Both in Rome and elsewhere, he had rivals and enemies, and this led to a shortage of loyal allies to occupy the consular commands.21 This may well be the background of a conspiracy which according to the HA took place between the spring and the summer of 118.22 The

a narrow field: for this was an age of peace unbroken or half-heartedly challenged, of tragedy in the capital, of a prince careless to extend the empire (Ann., 4, 32, 1). 17  Bennett (1997), 202-204; Birley (1997), 85. One wonders whether this may have been one of the reasons why Hadrian “supplemented the property of senators impoverished through no fault of their own, making the allowance in each case proportionate to the number of children, so that it might be enough for a senatorial career” (HA, Hadr., 7, 9). 18  Birley (2000), 135. 19  HA, Hadr., 7, 3. 20  Birley (1997), 77-78. 21  As Syme (1988), 304 points out, “reliance on a few persons carries manifest disadvantages, and even danger.” 22  “A plot to murder him while sacrificing was made by Nigrinus, with Lusius and a number of others as accomplices… but Hadrian successfully evaded this plot. Because of this conspiracy Palma was put to death at Tarracina, Celsus at Baiae, Nigrinus at Faventia, and Lusius on his journey homeward, all by order of the senate, but contrary to the wish of Hadrian, as he says himself in his autobiography” (HA, Hadr., 7, 1-2). On the date of this alleged conspiracy, see Benario (1980), 69.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

89

historicity of this conspiracy is impossible to substantiate,23 just as it is impossible to prove the existence of a connection between the four consulars condemned to death.24 In any case, public opinion reacted, as Dio observes.25 Birley suggests that something may have happened, which – perhaps only later – could be construed as an abortive assassination attempt. If Nigrinus plotted – or could plausibly be alleged to have plotted – to kill Hadrian, his real motive and that of his supposed fellow-conspirators might have been deep resentment at the abandonment of Trajan’s conquests. In any case, the account of the HA reflects the official version, designed to show that all four acted from unworthy personal motives, while it may be more plausible to postulate that they all opposed Hadrian’s policy shift.26 In any case, Meckler suggests that the episode may be interpreted as pointing out the fragility of an emperor’s control.27 23  It is apparently defended by Meckler (1996), 370 and by Birley (1997), 75. Syme (1984), 1281, however, recommends prudence: “Conspiracy was the charge, ill authenticated, and a decree of the senate enjoined or sanctioned their fate – against the wishes of Hadrian, or so he asserted in his autobiography (Hadr., 7, 2). Action having been taken in haste or error, it was desirable to find a scapegoat. The evidence is far from establishing a conspiracy.” From Hadr., 9, 3, we also learn that towards the end of his reign Hadrian refrained from killing Attian, one of those responsible for Quietus’ death, for fear of a scandal: “unable to endure the power of Attianus, his prefect and formerly his guardian, he was eager to murder him. He was restrained, however, by the knowledge that he already laboured under the odium of murdering four men of consular rank, although, as a matter of fact, he always attributed their execution to the designs of Attianus.” See Birley (1997), 87-88. 24  See Petersen (1968), 216-217. 25  “Hadrian… was… severely criticized for slaying several of the best men in the beginning of his reign… Those who were slain… were Palma and Celsus, Nigrinus and Lusius, the first two for the alleged reason that they had conspired against him during a hunt, and the other on certain other complaints, but in reality because they had great influence and enjoyed wealth and fame” (69, 2, 5). In another passage, too, Dio/Xiphilinus argues that Lusius Quietus “advanced so far in bravery and good fortune… that he was enrolled among the ex-praetors, became consul, and then governor of Palestine. To this chiefly were due the jealousy and hatred felt for him, and his destruction” (68, 32, 5, Exc.Val. 290). Petersen (1968), 216, suggests that it was Quietus’ position as legatus Augusti and his command of personal military forces that had made him dangerous to Hadrian. 26  Birley (1997), 87-88. 27  Meckler (1996), 370. Birley (1997), 125, estimates that four years later, in 122, while Hadrian was in Britain, an attempted coup may still have seemed a real possibility.

90

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

From a background of this kind may have stemmed Hadrian’s decision to replace provincial governors liable to support possible enemies, with reliably loyal people. Several abrupt changes in the governorship of provinces are attested to in the first months of Hadrian’s reign. In Egypt, less than one month after Trajan’s death, Q. Rammius Martialis replaced the prefect Rutilius Lupus;28 in Judaea, Marcus Titius Lustricus Bruttanius was sent in place of Lusius Quietus, the well-known Moorish general who had fought with an iron hand against the Jews in Mesopotamia.29 Scholars emphasize that it was Hadrian’s violent break with the militaristic and imperialistic ideals of his predecessor which led him to choose new men in order to avoid relying on Trajan’s appointees, many of whom were inveterately hostile to him.30 The reason why Hadrian subverted the power of the most prominent representatives of the warring faction – among whom was Lusius Quietus as the main advocate of the hardliners – would have been his declared goal to be remembered as an Emperor of peace and as restitutor orbis.31 This goal, it appears, would also have been achieved by displaying what might be called an iron-handed policy when the situation demanded it. Several episodes of unrest prevailing in the provinces when Hadrian became emperor are attested to by the HA: On taking possession of the imperial power Hadrian at once resumed the policy of the early emperors, and devoted his attention to maintaining peace throughout the world. For the nations which Trajan had conquered began to revolt; the Moors, moreover, began to make attacks, and the Sarmatians to wage war, the Britons could not be kept under Roman sway, Egypt was thrown into disorder by riots, and finally Libya and Palestine showed the spirit of rebellion.32

This passage has often aroused skepticism, perhaps also because this summarizing survey of the crisis all around the frontiers at Hadrian’s 28  Martialis is already attested in Egypt before the end of August. See Birley (1997), 79. 29  See Pucci Ben Zeev (2005), 191-209. 30  Bennett (1997), 203, for example, claims that in Hadrian’s day, there would be no place for some of Trajan’s more aggressive marshals. 31  Hengel (1984/5), 158; Schäfer (1990), 282; Malitz (2006), 143-144. 32  HA, Hadr., 5, 1-2.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

91

accession is strikingly similar to the celebrated opening of Tacitus’ Histories.33 It has been claimed that it cannot stand as independent historical evidence,34 and it does not appear in the list of the passages of the Vita Hadriani recognized by Barnes as attesting to “factual history.”35 It has been ascribed to the source used by the HA, which is here identified with the work of Marius Maximus, who, as Kulikowski points out, “wrote the biographies of the Antonine emperors with purposeful malice and gave a deliberately unfair account of the start of Hadrian’s reign, telescoping in a single event a series of different threats that actually extended over several years.”36 However, according to Birley the “extraordinary strong phrasing” of this section of the Vita Hadriani meant that it came from a reliable source,37 and it cannot be easily dismissed since the basic sources used by the HA for the lives of the emperors from Hadrian to Caracalla – Marius Maximus and an unknown biographer38 – abound in factual content and in historical details of undoubted authenticity.39 In fact, Hadrian’s biography is agreed to be one of the most veracious

33  “The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time. There was success in the East, misfortune in the West. Illyricum was disturbed, the Gallic provinces wavering, Britain subdued and immediately let go. The Sarmatae and Suebi rose against us; the Dacians won fame by defeats inflicted and suffered; even the Parthians were almost roused to arms through the trickery of a pretended Nero. Moreover, Italy was distressed by disasters unknown before or returning after the lapse of ages. Cities on the rich fertile shores of Campania were swallowed up or overwhelmed; Rome was devastated by conflagrations, in which her most ancient shrines were consumed and the very Capitol fired by citizens’ hands” (Hist., 1, 2). 34  Golan (1988), 335-336. 35  Barnes (1978), 33-34. 36  Schwartz (1983), 293 and Kulikowski (2007), 245-248. Nor this is the only instance of the kind. Meckler (1996), 370, note 35, too, points out that the events of Hadrian’s final years and succession are telescoped and out of sequence. 37  Birley (1995), 72-73. 38  See Syme (1971), 124-128; Barnes (1978), 98-107; Syme (1983), 33 and Birley (1997), 2678-2757. For a different view on the sources used by the HA, see Gaden (1976), 130. 39  See Syme (1971), 270; Barnes (1978), 38, 98; Meckler (1996), 375.

92

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

in the HA,40 and Birley suggests that this particular passage, in particular, “cannot be brushed aside.”41 He is certainly correct, since the disturbances mentioned in this passage are confirmed by other sources, and all of them took place in the first years of Hadrian’s reign. Concerning the uprising in Mauretania,42 the reasons for the uprising have been often identified with Hadrian’s behavior toward Lusius Quietus, namely, the fact that he “deprived him of the command of the Moorish tribesmen who were serving under him, dismissed him from the army, because he had fallen under the suspicion of having designs on the throne.”43 However, any link between the revolt and the fate of Quietus is rejected by Gutsfeld, both because the local inhabitants had had no connection with him for years44 and because Quietus’ Moorish soldiers had not been sent home with Quietus but rather to Dacia and to the Danubian lower region.45 The reasons for the unrest, which started in Mauretania Caesariensis but may have spread to Tingitana, the norther part of modern Morocco,46 have been rather identified with the Roman interference with the traditional transhumance patterns of the local nomadic tribes. In fact, the immigration of a sizable body of Roman soldiers meant that more 40  Meckler (1996), 374-375, for example, states that the Life of Hadrian seems to be quite sound historically and may have provided an unassailable foundation for the author’s imaginative reworking of the authority of the past. “In other words,” he points out, “the authenticity of the first biography may have conditioned the original readers to accept the validity of the biographies to follow. Only two episodes have been universally condemned.” See Meckler (1996), 375, note 45 on these two episodes, considered either deliberate fabrications or due to the transmission of the text, or, perhaps, to the author’s misunderstanding of his source. 41  Birley (2006), 674. 42  HA, Hadr., 5, 1-2 and 12, 7: “(Hadrian)… suppressed revolts among the Moors, and won from the senate the usual ceremonies of thanksgiving.” On the sources which the HA may have used regarding the events taking place in Mauretania, see Birley (1970), 83. 43  HA, Hadr., 5, 8. See also 7, 2. See Rachet (1970), 180; Birley (1997), 79, too, claims that within weeks, this treatment and indignation that it caused among their fellow-countrymen appear to have led to open revolt in Mauretania. See also Goodman (2007), 482 and Everitt (2009), 177 44  Gutsfeld (1989), 93-94. Bénabou (1976), 121-122, too, doubts about a possible link. 45  See Strobel (2010), 392. 46  Rachet (1970), 184; Syme (1983), 168.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

93

land was no longer available as winter pasture land for for the flocks of the mountain tribes.47 The disorders were settled by Marcius Turbo, who was sent there by Hadrian after the final repression of the Egyptian Jews,48 therefore after the late summer of 117.49 His mission, it appears, must have been brief, since in the February of 118 he is already found on the Danube.50 To this uprising may refer an inscription mentioning an irruption by the Baquates, a major semi-nomadic tribe which repeatedly raided Roman settlements, upon the town of Cartenna in Mauretania Caesariensis.51 The date of this inscription, however, is disputed,52 and the possibility has also been put forward, that there may have been more than one episode of rebellion during these years.53 Several Roman military diplomas appearing in inscriptions discovered at Volubilis, at Banasa, at Thamusida and at Aïn Schkour, dated to the period between 10 December 121 and December 122, attest to the demobilization of several auxilia which had been brought in as reinforcement.54 After the invasion of Cartenna in Hadrian’s reign, it appears, the Romans fortified Volubilis, built fortresses to defend its environs and at the same time probably found it necessary to engage in diplomacy. An inscription from Volubilis records a dedication to the Emperor Antoninus Pius by a Baquate chieftain, Aelius Tuccuda, who is called princeps and has a Roman name, which means that he received Roman citizenship.55 The citizenship and the title could have been granted by either Hadrian, immediately after the Baquates’ defeat at Cartenna, or by 47

 Rachet (1970), 177-178; Sigman (1977), 415, 430.  “He appointed Marcius Turbo… to quell the insurrection in Mauretania” (HA, Hadr., 5, 8). See Syme (1983), 307. 49  The last battles between Jews and Romans in Egypt were fought in the summer of 117. See Pucci Ben Zeev (2005), no. 26 and 154 for discussion. 50  Bénabou (1976), 124; Syme (1983), 168. 51  CIL VIII, 9663 = ILS 6882. 52  Frézouls (1957), 66 and Sigman (1970) date it to a period between 117 and 122. See also Euzennat (1984), 378. Février (1981), 26-27 wavers and Gutsfeld (1989), 94-95, dates it to later times. 53  Rachet (1970), 189. 54  Euzennat (1984), 379, note 30; Rachet (1970), 185-188. These diplomas, however, may well also refer to the unrest quelled by Turbo, since in Dacia, too, it appears that soldiers were dismissed honesta missione with a delay of at least four years. See Dusanic (1982), 199. 55  Euzennat (1984), 378. 48

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

94

Antoninus sometime later. The Romans, Sigman points out, tried to control the tribe through a ‘client-king’ type of relationship, and Tuccuda’s agreement with either Hadrian or Antoninus may have involved the delineation of pasture rights for his tribe.56 According to Ostrowski, the fighting in Mauretania may be reflected in a coin issued by Hadrian, which represents a bearded man and a woman in military dress leading a horse, with relics of elephant on her head, and arms in her hand.57 Disorders are also attested in Dacia. After Trajan’s death in 117, the Roxolian Sarmatians of the Northern Pontic steppes, together with the Iazyges located between the Danube and the Tisza rivers, encouraged by the difficulties encountered by the Romans in the war with the Parthians, attacked Dacia and lower Moesia.58 The garrison of Dacia and the Danubian provinces was below strength, since several legions and numerous auxiliary regiments had been drawn off for the Parthian expedition. Quadratus Bassus, sent there by Trajan from Syria to defend the new territories, ‘died on campaign in Dacia.’ Order was restored by Pompeius Falco, governor of Moesia Inferior, but the outcome was – in the eyes of many – shocking and demeaning for Rome. Large portions of Trajan’s conquest north of the Lower Danube were abandoned: the great plains of Oltenia and Muntenia, the south-eastern flank of the Carpathians and southern Moldavia, which had all been added to Moesia Inferior after the first Dacian war, were restored to the Roxolian Sarmatians. A new settlement of the Transdanubian territories was carried out. The remaining part of Moesia Inferior north of the river now became a separate province, which was labelled Dacia Inferior. Trajan’s Dacia was subdivided: the heart of the province, Transylvania, was designated Dacia Superior, with its capital at the Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa founded by Trajan. The northern part was detached, and was named Dacia Porolissensis.59 Soon after the evacuation of the new eastern provinces, Birley points out, this further withdrawal must have provoked anger, resentment and exaggeration. Hadrian could with some plausibility be alleged to have contemplated giving 56

 Sigman (1977), 415, 430-432.  Ostrowski (1990), 186-187, nos. 1-3, and 188. See also Cancik (1997), 137. 58  Giurescu and Fischer-Galaţi (1998), 39. 59  See Bennett (1997), 203, notes 104-106. 57

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

95

up Dacia itself.60 His rivals and enemies now had even better grounds for seeking to overthrow him. Peace was concluded with the king of the Roxolani, but matters were not so easily settled with the other branch of the Sarmatians, the Iazyges on the western flank of the Dacian province.61 Finally, the Iazyges sent an embassy to Rome, where, it seems, a client treaty was concluded.62 Soon after the Dacian uprisings, disorders took place in Britain,63 namely, an invasion from outside the province, which may have been connected to a rebellion within the province, of which a fourthcentury description of Hadrian’s intention in building the Wall – that it should divide the barbarians from the Romans – may be an echo.64 The revolt, which may have been provoked by Roman maltreatment of peoples in southern Scotland,65 was suppressed in 118, as a reference to Hadrian’s second consulship shows up in an inscription from Jarrow, which adorned some great monument which was erected 60  There seems to have been evidence of opposition to Hadrian’s frontier policy in his consilium. Eutrop. 8, 6, 2 states that Hadrian “envying Trajan’s glory, immediately gave up three of the provinces which Trajan had added to the empire, withdrawing the armies from Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia, and deciding that the Euphrates should be the boundary of the empire. When he was proceeding to act similarly with regard to Dacia, his friends dissuaded him, lest many Roman citizens should be left in the hands of the barbarians, because Trajan, after he had subdued Dacia, had transplanted thither an infinite number of men from the whole Roman world, to people the country and the cities; as the land had been exhausted of inhabitants in the long war maintained by Decebalus.” The suggestion of withdrawal from Dacia, on the other hand, is dismissed as ‘idle malice’ by Syme (1958), 489, but according to Birley (1997), 87, the suggestion of confrontation with the consilium needs not be false. 61  Birley (1997), 80-86, 90. About these events see also Strobel (1986), 905-967 (non vidi). On the military forces attested in loco in 119 CE, after the serious troubles, see Eck et al. (2001), 27-48 and Holder (2003), 101-145. 62  Mócsy (1974), 100. 63  HA, Hadr., 5, 2. 64  HA, Hadr., 11, 2. 65  Birley (2005), 118. Though the HA described the Wall as dividing Romans from babarians, at the time it was constructed, it served to divide the unruly Selgovae from the equally unruly Brigantes. While one of its purposes was to define the frontier of the province and prevent raids from the north, another was quite certainly to preclude that joint planning between northerners and Brigantes which had been a fruitful source of trouble in the past. The Brigantes were certainly at the center of the rebellion, and had close ties to the Selgovae and the Novantae in southern Caledonia. See Frere (1967), 126.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

96

a few years later near the east end of Hadrian’s Wall to commemorate the victory and the completion of the frontier, and the following year, 119, saw the issue of commemorative coins.66 The disorders were quelled by the governor Q. Pompeius Falco, who brought the situation back under control,67 but only after heavy Roman losses, and at a moment between 119 and 122, the primipilaris T. Pontius Sabinus brought 3,000 legionaries from the legions of Spain and Upper Germany, to Britain, presumably to make up losses incurred during the rebellion.68 As for the uprisings in Egypt, in Libya and in Judaea mentioned by the HA, they are obviously to be identified with the Jewish Uprisings which had taken place in Trajan’s time69 and which had not yet been quelled everywhere by the time Hadrian rose to power in the August of 117. From the testimony of the papyri we learn that hotbeds of resistance were still found in Egypt,70 and that peace was completely restored only by September,71 at least one month after Hadrian became emperor. This may explain the passage of Eusebius’ Chronicon preserved by Hieronymus, which states that in the first year of his reign, Hadrianus Iudaeos capit secundo contra Romanos rebellantes,72 where Hadrian seems to be seen as responsible for the final repression of the rebellion.73 The HA therefore is correct when it mentions episodes of armed resistance occurring at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign, and it is therefore no accident that the image of Hadrian as victorious leader over crushed enemies is emphasized in a statue from Hierapytna, Crete, where a captive is represented under Hadrian’s leg. Isaac argues 66

 Jarret (1976), 145, note 4. The personified province Britannia, described as ‘Britain subdued’ appears as a figure of dejection, sitting with her right elbow resting on her knee and supporting her head, her right foot placed on rocks. The issue commemorated the war which Pompeius Falco had waged and which Hadrian’s expedition formally brought to an end. See Birley (1997), 141. 67  See Salway (1981), 173. 68  Birley (2005), 118. See also Danziger and Purcell (2005), 171-182. 69  Kulikowski (2007), 245-248. 70  The last battles between Jews and Romans were being fought in the summer of 117. See Pucci Ben Zeev (2005), no. 26 and 154 for discussion. 71  Pucci Ben Zeev (2005), 154-155. 72  CCXXIIII Olymp. 117 CE. Hieronimus, Chronicon, CCXXIII Olymp., ed. Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke, vol. 7. GCS 47 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956, repr. Berlin 1984), 197. 73  See also Horbury (2014), 259.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

97

Fig. 17. Statue of Hadrian from Hierapytna, Crete. Photo: Alinari, Fratelli. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, 585, inv. No. 50.

that this type of statue, common from the time of Domitian onwards, was not a symbolic representation, but reflected a genuine, concrete Roman conception of the emperor and his enemy.74 As for the captive under Hadrian’s foot, views have been put forward, that he may be a Diaspora captive Jew after the repression of the Diaspora Jewish Uprisings75 or a Jewish prisoner after the end of 74

 Isaac (2008), 604.  Isaac (2008), 603.

75

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

98

the Bar Kokhba War,76 but there is no indication that he may be identified as a Jew, since, as we have seen above,77 there was more than one rebellious movement against Rome at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign. Vout points out that this locally produced statue of Hadrian, based on a model conceived in the capital, already forced Cretan viewers to think… about how their bit of the Empire fitted with the whole, while the childlike barbarian underfoot fights with Hadrian for their attention. How confident are they about his alienness and their sense of belonging?78

A message similar to that of the statue from Hierapytna is conveyed by a number of breastplates which appear on statues erected in honor of Hadrian in various places around the Eastern Mediterranean basin in the years between 117 and 123. In a statue of Hadrian from Knossos, now in the Archaeological Museum of Herakleion, a breastplate appears, which belongs to the group which Gergel calls the “eastern Victory type,” where a female captive is shown either in abject humiliation beneath the emperor’s foot or bound and kneeling at the emperor’s side. This depiction was probably meant to celebrate the military accomplishments that mark the beginning of Hadrian’s reign,79 and perhaps a similar meaning may also be attached to the base which supported a statue of Hadrian, probably from Scythopolis, which displays on its sides an image of Neptune and possibly one of Victoria.80 As Ziosi observes, Hadrian used two means to strengthen his power. The first was to secure the support both of the legions under his command and of influential 76

 Ostrowski (1990), 182.  See above, 92-96. 78  Vout (2010), 57. 79  Gergel (2004), 377, 383, 385, 407, observes that this breastplate type is found on five statues, three of them found in Crete at Hierapytna, at Gortyna and at Kisamos; the fourth comes from Antalya in Asia Minor and the fifth from Haidra in Tunisia. My thanks are due to the curator of the Herakleion Museum, Kleanthis Sidiropoulos, who pointed out to me that the statue which we believed to come from Gortyna was found instead at Knossos. See Kotsonas (2016), 304-305. 80  CIL III, 13589 = 14155, 14. The decoration, Eck (2003), 156, suggests, may refer to the Bar Kokhba revolt itself, or to some fighting in the province, but may also be related to the final repression of the rising in the diaspora in the early years of the reign. 77

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

99

Fig. 18. Eastern Victory-type breastplate on Hadrian’s statue from Knossos. Gergel (2004), 380, fig. 19, 3, c. Archaeological Museum of Herakleion, Inv. no. ΑΜΗ Γ 5.

people within Trajan’s inner circle. The second was to present himself as the peacemaker of the East, especially before the Senate.81

The episodes of unrest transpiring in these years make it clear why Hadrian deemed it necessary to strengthen Roman control in the various provinces of the empire. This is also borne out by what happened in Judaea, where at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign the military forces stationed in the country were doubled by the addition of a legion, and at the same time the juridical status of the province was changed from that of a praetorian province to that of a provincia consularis. Moreover, Hadrian decided to remove the Roman governor then in office in Judaea and to replace him with one who had been a friend of his from earlier times, and to start a program of road building and improvements. All these changes go hand in hand with the decision to found a new colony in the country, and are worthy of a closer look. 81

 Ziosi (2018), 129.

100

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

117-130 CE: CHANGES

IN

ROMAN POLICY IN JUDAEA

The Replacement of the Roman Governor One of the provincial governors replaced by Hadrian at the very beginning of his reign was Lusius Quietus, who commanded Judaea.82 The substitution has been variously explained by his desire of breaking with the militaristic and imperialistic ideals of his predecessor,83 by the fear that Quietus might join an alternative contestant to the throne,84 and/or by Quietus’ position as legatus Augusti and his command of personal military forces, that may have been regarded as dangerous to Hadrian,85 as Dio implies when he observes that Quietus advanced so far in bravery and good fortune… that he was enrolled among the ex-praetors, became consul, and then governor of Palestine. To this chiefly were due the jealousy and hatred felt for him and his destruction.86

One might also surmise that Hadrian’s decision to remove Quietus may have been motivated by the latter’s problematic conduct in Judaea, where he was involved in a military campaign, as we learn from an inscription found on a funerary monument at Cagliari in Sardinia, which records a military campaign carried out in Judaea among the enterprises undertaken by the deceased Tettius Crescens.87 82

 His presence in Judaea is mentioned both by Dio (68, 32, 5, Exc.Val. 290) and by Eusebius (HE, 4, 2, 5) at some point between the late autumn 116 and the early summer of 117. Quietus was sent to Judaea after the unsuccessful siege of Hatra, which took place in June 117 according to Lepper (1948), 89 and to Bennet (1997), 200-201, while Strobel (2010), 392, on the other hand, suggests the late autumn of 116. See also Piso (2013), 256. 83  Bennett (1997), 203. 84  Birley (1997), 79; Goodman (2007), 481. 85  Petersen (1968), 216. 86  68, 32, 5, Exc.Val. 290. In another context, too, while reporting on the four consulars involved in an alleged conspiracy, Dio points out that “Hadrian… was… severely criticized for slaying several of the best men in the beginning of his reign… but in reality because they had great influence and enjoyed wealth and fame (69, 2, 5). 87  “Lucius Tettius Crescens, from Rome, lived for –– years, took part in the expeditions to Dacia twice, to Armenia, to Parthia and to Judaea. He made this tomb for himself during his lifetime”: AE 1929, no. 167 = Sotgiu (1988), 560, A 57 (ph.). This campaign must have taken place during Trajan’s reign, as were

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

101

Fig. 19. Lusius Quietus on the Column of Trajan, Rome (https://fineartamerica.com/featured/lusius-quietus-berber-dacian-battlescene-on-column-of-trajan-in-the-roman-forum-peter-ogden-gallery. html?product=metalprint) (accessed 28/02/2022).

A ‘War of Qitos’ taking place between the Great War and that of Bar Kokhba is also mentioned in two Jewish sources belonging to the early stage of the rabbinic literature, the Seder Olam Rabbah88 and those that precede it in the list provided by the epitaph. See Pucci Ben Zeev (2000), 256-258. In this period of time, the military campaigns were increasingly referred to as expeditiones in the epigraphical sources. See Alföldi (1987), 479. The campaigns are recorded in chronological sequence: first the Dacian wars, in 101 and 102, then the Armenian and the Parthian wars, from 114 to 117, and finally that of Judaea. Since the sequence is chronological, the last campaign mentioned cannot be identified with the Great War, which had taken place long before the Dacian wars, and, also, it cannot be identified with the Bar Kokhba war, since the length of over thirty years which elapsed between the First Dacian war in 101 and the Bar Kokhba war is a very long span of time. This applies both if Tettius Crescens was a soldier, or if he was a civilian, which is probably the case since no mention is made of his military status. See Bruun (1992), 101-106. An additional indication that the campaign mentioned in this inscription cannot be identified with the Bar Kokhba War is the fact that the list is strictly chronological, and if it had also comprised Hadrian’s wars, there would be a ‘missing campaign’ here, namely, Hadrian’s expeditio Britannica fought in 122. I thank Prof. Werner Eck for pointing this out to me. 88  Seder Olam Rabbah, 30.

102

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

the Kaufman manuscript of the Mishnah,89 where the name Qitos is reasonably to be identified with Lusius Quietus. However, no source is found to attest to an uprising taking place in Judaea at the time, which raises the possibility that Quietus’ military action may have been not the repression of a rebellious movement but rather a reaction following the Diaspora revolts.90 In fact, this would not be the first time that Roman policy towards the Jews approached the problem of diaspora Jews alongside the problem of the Jews in their homeland, and vice versa.91 An attitude of this kind has a long history and is attested back to the middle of the first century BCE, when Cicero blamed the Jews of Rome for the military opposition to Pompey’s invasion displayed by Judaean Jews.92 It was not only a theoretical approach. It is also to be found in realpolitik. After the war of 66-70 CE in Judaea, all Jews, irrespective of where they lived and of their legal status, bore the consequences of the war fought by Judaean Jews by being forced to pay the Fiscus Judaicus to the Roman treasury. In Egypt, moreover, minor Jewish disturbances led to Vespasian’s decision to close, and then demolish, the temple of Leontopolis, a center of Egyptian Jewry.93 The possibility suggested by Goodman, that Quietus’ campaign in Judaea, too, may have been a chastisement for the violent uprisings in the diaspora,94 would help explain why no source expands on any initiative on the part of the Judaean Jews, and would also explain why a few admittedly late Oriental Christian sources mention not a Jewish uprising but rather a Roman military offensive against the Jews.95  Mishnah Sotah, 9:14  On this possibility, see Goodman (2004), 26 and Ben Zeev Hofman (2019), 205-224. 91  Goodman (2004), 26. 92  Pro Flacco, 28, 69. 93  “The Emperor [Vespasian],” Josephus claims, “was suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution and fearing that they might again collect together in force and draw others away with them, ordered Lupus to demolish the Jewish temple in the so-called district of Onias” (Jos., Bell., 7, 421). 94  Goodman (2004), 26; Goodman (2003), 26-28. 95  The Armenian Moses Khorenatsi states that, after pacifying all of the east, Trajan “descended on the Egyptians and Palestinians.” Eutychios, too, patriarch of Alexandria in the first half of the tenth century, whose historical-legendary compilation often relies on local traditions unfortunately impossible to identify, writes that Trajan sent a general with great military forces to Jerusalem and that on that occasion 89 90

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

103

Of course, it is not plausible that Quietus carried out a military campaign against a completely peaceful population. Something must have happened to prompt the armed clash. Certainly, as Prof. Stemberger was kind enough to point out to me,96 in a tense situation, any disturbance, even by a few individuals, may have brought about massive reprisals by the Roman forces, serious enough to be called a ‘military campaign’ in the epitaph from Sardinia. Admittedly, it is an argumentum ex silentio, but it may help to build a reasonable picture on the basis of the testimony of the extant sources.97 Presumably in the first months of his reign,98 Hadrian is said by the HA to have “deprived Lusius Quietus of the command of the Moorish tribesmen, who were serving under him, and then dismissed him from the army.”99 He was replaced by a governor whose very existence has been recently discovered thanks to an inscription found during the excavations directed by Jean-Marc Mignon in the Roman forum of Vaison-la-Romaine (Vaison / Vasio Vocontiorum, in Gallia Narbonensis) between 2013 and 2015.100 Inscribed in marble and an enormous number of Jews were killed. A similar tradition is reported two centuries later by Michael Syrus, and then, one century after that, by another Syrian author, Gregorius Ab’ûl-Faraj, a bishop who, because of his Jewish origins, is known as Bar Hebraeus. These late sources weave legend and history together and have therefore uncertain historical value, but passages can be isolated that seem to be based on reliable ancient sources, possibly from Edessa, which may have included material from the local archives and chronicles of Antiochene origin. See Pucci Ben Zeev (2005), 247-249. 96  Personal communication. 97  See Ben Zeev Hofman (2019), 205-224. 98  See Dabrowa (2017), 290, note 48. 99  HA, Hadr., 5, 8. Rumors about a conspiracy were spread sometime later, while Hadrian was en route to Rome, sometime between the spring and the summer of 118, and Quietus was put to death on his journey homeward (HA, Hadr., 7, 1-2). See Birley (1997), 79. 100  Mignon, Lavergne and Rossignol (2013), 294. A French translation is offered in https://www.facebook.com/notes/vaison-la-romaine/fouilles-au-forum-antiquemarcus-titius-d%C3%A9couverte-dun-vaisonnais-au-sommet-de-l/164768655881 0126 (accessed 21/04/2017): “À Marcus Titius Lustricus Bruttianus, fils de Marcus, inscrit dans la tribu Voltinia, consul, proconsul de la province d’Achaïe, préteur, édile de la plèbe, questeur de la province d’Achaïe, légat de la province d’Afrique, légat d’Auguste de la première légion Italica, de la 10ème légion Auguste, pro préteur de la province de Cilicie, tribun des soldats de la [nième] légion, décoré des dons militaires pour la guerre dacique par l’Imperator César Nerva Trajan Auguste, vainqueur des Germains, vainqueur des Daces, d’une couronne vallaire dorée, d’une

104

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

more than two meters long, the inscription appears on a pedestal that in all probability carried an equestrian statue. It describes the cursus honorum of Marcus Titius Lustricus Bruttanius: tribunus militum in the days of Domitian, quaestor in the province of Achaia in Greece, aedilis plebis and praetor in Rome. He was commander of the legio I Italica and then participated in the first Dacian war in 101-102 CE. In 103-105 he served as governor of the provincia Cilicia and in 106107 again of that of Achaia. When he returned from this province, he was involved in a suit brought before Trajan,101 and then was made consul suffectus along with Hadrian in the autumn of 108.102 He and Hadrian may have been friends from the time of the Dacian War, and their families may have been linked even before this. Then Bruttanius received an important special mission in Germany, details of which are unavailable to us, and later, after the accession of Hadrian to the throne, he was sent to Judaea as legatus Augusti pro praetore. As such, he was judicial officer and commander-in-chief of all military forces stationed in the province, which included legions and auxiliaries, and was also in charge of the provincial administration. At this point, instead of mentioning the names of the armies at his command, the inscription has a peculiar general expression: it states that he was head “of the Jewish and Arabic armies” (lega[to]// pro pr(aetore) Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Traiani Ha// driani Aug(usti) exercit(uum) Iudaici// et Arabici). Perhaps the people of Vaison-laRomaine responsible for the wording of the inscription were not acquainted with the names of the military forces stationed in provinces as far away from Rome as Judaea and Arabia. As for the responsibility for the military forces of both Judaea and Arabia, it is somewhat unusual, but not without parallel. In the same months, Marcius Turbo, too, the military commander who had fought valiantly against the Jews in Egypt, received from Hadrian an exceptional position that couronne murale dorée, de trois lances pures et de trois fanions, …, légat propréteur de l’Imperator César Nerva Trajan Auguste, vainqueur des Germains, vainqueur des Daces, de l’armée (?) qui est en Germanie supérieure et inférieure, septemvir épulon, légat propréteur de l’Imperator César Trajan Hadrien Auguste des armées de Judée et d’Arabie, les Éduens à leur patron.” My grateful thanks to Prof. Günter Stemberger for calling my attention to the article by Eck (2016), 129, where mention of this inscription is found. 101  Plinius, Ep., 6, 22. 102  Eck (2016), 129, note 7.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

105

embraced Dacia and Pannonia Inferior103 – an uncommon appointment which has been linked to the lack of loyal consular governors available in the problematic situation obtaining in the first months of Hadrian’s reign.104 Bruttanius did not remain in Judaea for long. At some point between 118 and 120, a new governor of Judaea, Lucius Cossonius Lucii filius Gallus Vecilius Crispinus Mansuanius Marcellinus Numisius Sabinus, is attested to in an inscription from Caesarea Maritima.105 A Network of New Roads Before the time of Hadrian, there is no evidence of a Roman road network in Judaea. The local standard seems to have been thought sufficient, while in time of war, the legions brought with them units, whose task it was to straighten, broaden and level existing roads. The situation completely changed in the fifteen years which elapsed between the accession of Hadrian to the throne in 117 and the time of his visit to Judaea in 130 CE, when a whole network of road construction and repair is attested.106 Milestones of Hadrian were found on the road from Caparcotna to Neapolis, from Caparcotna to Scythopolis, and from Scythopolis to Jericho. It is the earliest regular series of milestones found in Judaea,107 and attests to the improvement of the road network in the entire province from 120 onwards. 103  HA, Hadr., 6, 7; 7, 3. Syme (1988), 296 and 312-313 mentions this anomalous command among the items attesting to ‘abrupt or scandalous promotions.’ 104  See above, 85-89. Birley (1981), 18, observes that “some thirty men are known who were legate of more than one legion: where evidence is available, special circumstances can be seen to have brought about the iterated command.” 105  AE 2003, no. 1801 = CIIP II, no. 1227. Since he had been consul suffectus in 116 (see Eck CIIP 2 [2011], 160 and Eck [2013], 236) and since, according to the career pattern common under Trajan and Hadrian, his legatio in Judea may have followed his consulship after an interval of two to four years (see Cotton and Eck [2001], 219-223), he may have arrived in Judaea any time between 118 and 120. See Eck (2007a), 114 and idem (2015), 22. Cossonius was then replaced by Marcus Paccius Silvanus Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus. See Dabrowa (2017), 290. A new inscription recently discovered at Dor allows dating his tenure as Judaea’s governor to the years 123-125. See Gambash and Yasur-Landau (2018), 160. 106  On the milestones attesting to the repair of the road leading from Caparcotna to Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) in 129 and 130 CE, on occasion of Hadrian’s visit to the country, see Isaac [1979] (1998a), 186 and Isaac (2015), 42. 107  Isaac [1978] (1998), 49-50.

106

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Moreover, starting from the first years of Hadrian’s reign, roads were also built to connect key sites in Judaea not only with each other but also with neighboring provinces, and may also have been related to Hadrian’s forthcoming visit to the province.108 By 120 CE, the soldiers of the legio II Traiana had completed the building of a new road from Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) to Caparcotna (Legio) in the Jezreel Valley,109 the headquarters of a newly established Roman command in Galilee. The road led from there to Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) in the hills of west Galilee and thence to Ptolemais (Acre), controlling movement between Judaea and Galilee110 and at the same time securing the vital connection between Egypt and Syria.111 In fact, there was a shorter and easier Roman road between Caparcotna and Ptolemais through the plain, skirting the Carmel, which saved 9 kilometers and a climb and descent of 250 meters each way.112 The purpose of the new road via Sepphoris, therefore, must have been to make that town and its surroundings accessible from two directions, presumably for the needs of the local military traffic.113 No wonder. In the provinces, Kissel points out, the primary aim in road construction was to facilitate military organization.114 The construction of new roads is one of the characteristics of Hadrian’s policy, and has been interpreted as attesting to Hadrian’s care and concern for safe connections in Judaea and between provinces. At the same time, the fact that these improvements of the road network in the entire province took place immediately after the repression of the Diaspora uprisings raise the plausibility that they may also have had military purposes.115 In view of parallels with what 108

 See Avi-Yonah (1966), 183 and Halfmann (1986), 87.  See Isaac-Roll [1979] (1998a), 186; Isaac-Roll [1979a] (1998b), 198, note 2 and 203, note 26. 110  Isaac and Roll [1979] (1998a), 191. 111  See Hengel (1987), 159, note 33. 112  The road from Ptolemais to Caparcotna through the plain was part of the network of major Roman roads in the province and gave access to all parts of it via the cross-roads at Caparcotna (Legio). See Isaac [1979a] (1998b), 202, note 15. 113  Isaac and Roll [1979a] (1998b), 202. Mazor (2007), 4, too, observes that the emperor’s strategic and political policies resulted in the construction of a highly sophisticated road network in the region, in accordance with military standards. See also Mor (2016), 113. 114  Kissel (2002), 129. 115  Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 100. 109

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

107

happened in other provinces, Isaac and Oppenheimer suggest that such a road-building program may well reflect a response to local unrest or preparations for the suppression of anticipated hostilities, or both.116 Eck, too, observes that many milestones have been found, attesting to the improvement of the road network in the entire province from 120 onwards. This may well have been the result of unrest during Trajan’s last years, and the stationing of a second legion in Judaea at about the same time: both increased the need for communication between a greater number of military bases, and for the safe transport of supplies and reinforcements.117

Similarly, Mazor points out: As a result of his previous experiences during the Jewish uprising at the end of Trajan’s reign in 117 CE, and in the face of newly awakening unrest in the province, Hadrian set out to re-arrange the unstable province. … The emperor’s strategic and political policies now resulted in the construction of a highly sophisticated road network in the region, in accordance with military standards.118

It is also no accident that in this period of time Hadrian decided to replace Jerusalem with a Roman colony. The Romans often built new roads when they founded new colonies. The combination of roadbuilding and the founding of colonies was a familiar pattern in Roman history, as happened in Dacia, when, after the establishment of the Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa by Trajan, roads and bridges were built to allow rapid means of communication within the province and with Rome.119 We also find that often the stationing of a legion followed the founding of a colony or vice-versa. “In Judaea,” Isaac points out, “we have seen the foundation of Caesarea as a Roman colony at the time when X Fretensis was first established at Jerusalem. Similarly, there may be a connection between the two decisions taken by Hadrian to assign a second legion to the province and to found a new colony.”120 In this direction also points Birley, who remarks that the considerable work which had been going 116

 Isaac and Oppenheimer [1985] (1998), 241-242.  Eck (2003), 155. 118  Mazor (2007), 4. 119  Giurescu and Fischer-Galaţi (1998), 40. 120  Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 100-102. 117

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

108

on in the past few years on the road-network in the province may well have been with a view to facilitating the transport of building materials.121 Special attention was given to the condition of the roads when imperial visits were planned. This may be the case of the road from Philadelphia/Amman to Petra and of that from Scythopolis to Legio/ Caparcotna, where improvements are attested to have been made in 129.122 At this point, one wonders whether this improvement of the road network may also have been intended for the benefit of the local population. On one hand, Mehlman points out that currency and the extensive network of roads stretching throughout the Empire built for military needs enabled people and goods to move freely, fostering economic activity. The promise of prosperity in turn, generated support for Roman authority.123

On the other hand, one has also to take into account the fact that the costs of road construction, both in human and financial terms, must have been enormous. Although the army’s participation is attested in several inscriptions, the involvement of civilian labor was presumably a conditio sine qua non, and it is well known that Rome satisfied her increasing financial needs by passing on the expenses to the local communities by the imposition of taxes and other burdens on the provincials. We do not know how many people were engaged in road building/repair, nor do we know whether their services were called upon annually, or only intermittently. Possibly, the munitio viarum was imposed on the local communities for a specified number of days a year,124 and it is therefore presumable that the expenses for the new roads built in Judaea fell, at least partially, on the local population. As Mitchell observes,125 the major highways of the Empire were largely built at local expense, or, to make the point more realistically, with compulsory local labor. In any case, from the Roman point of view, the construction and the repair of roads in Judaea in Hadrian’s days was an impressive 121

 Birley (1997), 233.  See Holum (1992), respectively, 54 and 53, with note 16. 123  Mehlman (2014), 18, 20. 124  Kissel (2002), 130-133. 125  Mitchell (1987), 336-337. 122

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

109

enterprise, which goes hand in hand with another meaningful change which took place at the same time, namely, the modification of the juridical status of the province. A New Juridical Status and the Doubling of the Roman Military Forces Probably soon after his election to Emperor, the status of Judaea was altered and the province was given the status of a consular province. In fact, in theory this may already have happened in Trajan’s days,126 when Lusius Quietus was sent to the province with a consular status.127 However, in the first half of 117 Trajan was deeply involved in the problematic developments of the Parthian War, and, also, the Jewish Diaspora uprisings had not yet been quelled everywhere. All this makes it somewhat doubtful that he had the time and peace of mind to plan to arrange a change of the juridical status of Judaea. Keppie, too, points out that the consulship of Lusius Quietus needs prove nothing about the status, praetorian or consular, of the province at that date. His appointment can be convincingly explained in the light of the contemporary unrest.128 Isaac and Roll point out that that the change in the status of the province most probably came at the moment when Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia,129 when the legio II Traiana, which had been active in Trajan’s Parthian War, was available for service in Judaea, from the second half of 117 onward.130 Kennedy, too, convincingly points out that the second legion arrived in Judaea after Hadrian had become emperor since in the context of the Jewish revolts and the subsequent insecurity and rebuilding, the desirability of placing an extra legion in Judaea was understandable.131 The legion was established at Caparcotna (Legio),132 a place 126

 According to Urloiu (2010), 115-116, this happened in 107/108.  “(Quietus) advanced so far in bravery and good fortune during this present war [the Parthian] that he was enrolled among the ex-praetors, became consul, and then governor of Palestine.” (Dio, 68, 32, 5, Exc.Val. 290). 128  Keppie (2000a), 859-860. 129  Isaac and Roll [1979] (1998a), 190. 130  Isaac and Roll [1979a] (1998b), 204. On the presence of the legion in Iudaea since 117, see also Daris (2000), 359-363. 131  Kennedy (1980), 307. See also Goodblatt (1983), 182 and Millar (1993), 107. 132  See Isaac-Roll [1979] (1998a), 186; Isaac-Roll [1979a] (1998b), 198, note 2 and 203, note 26. 127

110

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

which commanded the Jezreel Valley and afforded a natural access from the Mediterranean coast to Damascus, from Damascus to the Euphrates and thence to India.133 In the area of Legio, Tepper points out, there were two military installations: a military fort and a Roman legionary camp alongside it. The fort, probably the camp of a small unit, was located on the summit of a ridge south of Nahal Qeni in a commanding strategic position overlooking the surroundings. The camp or the headquarters of the legion was located on the eastern slopes of the hill of El-Manach. Although its position lacked strategic advantage, it was chosen for two other vital purposes, water and roads. Its location near an abundant and accessible water source avoided the necessity of supplying water via long aqueducts. Then, its location at a major junction of Roman roads emphasizes the crucial role played by the road network in the Roman system, in the eastern Empire as a whole and specifically in the province of Judaea.134 Moreover, the surrounding rich agricultural lands and the possibility of exploiting them as an economic and agricultural base for the legion was probably an additional motive for the location of the camp. Indeed, land division (limitatio) was discerned in the area of Legio, and in aerial photographs one can see remnants of long, thin plots that correspond to the routes of Roman roads, evidence of an organized and orderly Roman system that survived in the valley until the nineteenth century. A cippus bearing the Roman numeral XVI found there, shows that there existed some form of Roman land-division in the area and that the lands had been taken over as private estates by the emperor and formed an imperial estate.135 From this time on, two legions were stationed in Judaea, each one commanded by a senatorial legate serving under the provincial governor.136 The change of the status of Judaea, with the addition of a second legion, fits well into Hadrian’s policy, which aimed at strengthening Roman control, settling and improving the security of the provinces,

133

 Isaac and Roll [1979] (1998a), 190.  Tepper (2007), 68. 135  See Isaac-Roll (1982), 105-106 and Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green (1994), 182. 136  Isaac (2010), 14-15. 134

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

111

as Schäfer claims137 – security, of course, from the Roman point of view. Judaea had become a Roman province in 6 CE, when it was probably annexed to the province of Syria; then it became an independent procuratorial province between 44 and 67, and was promoted to a praetorian province in 70.138 Now, with the arrival of a second legion, Judaea came to have two legions, the legio II Traiana and the X Fretensis, which had been stationed in Judaea since the Great War,139 and its status was changed to that of a provincia consularis.140 In addition to the two legions, the governor had at his disposal also about fifteen or seventeen auxiliary units.141 No doubt, the presence of an additional legion in Judaea had meaningful consequences for the inhabitants of the country. Chancey observes that after 120 the changes in the material culture of Palestine and the Transjordan that followed in the wake of this influx of Roman soldiers were dramatic.142

He is probably referring to new Roman roads and to monumental architecture, theatres, baths, stadiums, hippodromes and amphitheaters. Other aspects, though, should also be emphasized. The presence of an additional legion certainly increased the extent of legal and illegal economic burdens, abuses and extortions,143 and may also have had a role in the spread of pagan cults in the country.144 Mor observes that the increasing presence of the Roman army spread throughout Judaea in many bases and camps resulted in stricter supervision over the people. This sense of deprivation led to ceaseless attempts by the Jewish population to be rid of Roman pressure. But not only did these attempts fail to bring relief, they even increased pressure from the 137

 Schäfer (1990), 285-286, 295.  See Cotton (1999), 75-81. 139  Sce Mor (2016), 29, 44-47. 140  Schäfer (1990), 283. 141  See Eck (1999), 79 and 79, note 15. 142  Chancey (2005), 233. See also Ecker (2016). 143  See Labbé (2012), 455-456. On the burdens imposed on the local population by the Roman army, see also Whittaker (2002), 204-234. 144  See Friedheim (2000), 204-206. 138

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

112

Romans, who extended deployment of the army more widely in the province each time.145

It therefore appears that the doubling of the Roman forces stationed in the country may have had a bearing on the quality of life in Judaea, aggravating a situation that may have already been tense.146 In the same years, testimonies are also found which point to a further increasing influence of the pagan elite in Judaea, a process which may have begun from the time of the Roman conquest of the country, but may have been accelerated at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign. SHIFTING BALANCES During the first century, the outcomes of the Roman conquest first, and then, later, the consequences of the defeat of the Great War, had progressively altered the balance of the relations between the Jews and the non-Jews living in Judaea, relations which had already often been strained since Hellenistic and even Persian times. In Hadrian’s time, a further increasing influence of the pagan elite in Judaea is attested in several northern settlements of the country, as we learn from the iconography of the coins minted at Neapolis, at Sepphoris and at Tiberias,147 which, in Weikert’s words, points to a ‘shift of numismatic sensibilities,’148 from an aniconic period in the first century,149 to a mixed Jewish-pagan phase in Trajan’s time and to an entirely pagan stage from the time of Hadrian onwards.150 As Chancey points out,151 the adoption of the imagery of deities, temples and emperors in these coins indicated their elites’ full-scale participation in this aspect of the civic culture of the eastern Roman Empire. The best attested case is that of Sepphoris. Here, in Trajan’s time coins were minted which had on the reverse mixed symbols, including those common in Jewish iconography since Hasmonean times, such 145

 Mor (2016), 31 and 47-50.  See below, 148-150. 147  See Meyers (1993), 29-36. 148  Weikert (2016), 250. 149  Meshorer (1979), 163-165; Syon (2013), 62. 150  See Sigismund (2007), 336 and Kushnir-Stein (2008), 129. 151  Chancey (2005), 189. 146

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

113

as laurel wreaths, palm trees, and ears of grain or corn,152 along with the caduceus, a short rod entwined by two serpents, sometimes surmounted by wings, which in Greek and Roman iconography was related to the god Hermes, the messenger of the gods and guarantor of wealth – Mercury at Rome.153 The obverse of this coin had the portrait of the emperor, surrounded by the words TRAIANOS AVTOKRATWR EDOKEN.

Fig. 20. Trajan. Sepphoris. Obv. TRAIANOS AVTOKRATWR EDOKEN. Rev. SEPFW-RHNWN. Meshorer (2013), 68, no. 1. RPC III, 1, no. 3936. CNG 118, September 13, 2021, Lot: 872. Courtesy of CNG.

This expression has been variously interpreted. Howgego observes that the right of local coinage was part of the delicate balance between local autonomy and centralized authority which had been established in the Hellenistic period and taken over by the Romans. All such rights were precarious, and permission to mint was sometime sought from the Roman authorities, so that the inscriptions on those coins often mentions the terms ‘indulgence,’ ‘permission’ or similar formulae.154 Meshorer, too, regards this expression as reflecting positive relations between the municipality of Sepphoris and the Roman authorities, which enabled the people of Sepphoris to mint almost 152

 Donald and Bijovski (2018), 506, call them “inoffensive symbols.”  On the coins of Sepphoris, see Meshorer (1985), 36-37. 154  Howgego (1985), 88. 153

114

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

‘real’ Jewish coinage.155 Against Chancey and Weikert, who take the words appearing on the coin to mean that Trajan gave privileges to the city,156 Meyers, Meyers and Hendin observe that the legend of this coin may simply mean that Trajan permitted the local council of Sepphoris to issue coins and that the permission received special notation because the city had not previously issued coinage except for the unusual issue during Nero’s reign. They also suggest that Trajan may have donated to the city of Sepphoris the bronze for use in striking this series of coins, in which case the term ‘gave’ in the inscription can be read literally.157 This so-called ‘Jewish mint’ at Sepphoris stops abruptly in Hadrian’s time, and scholars’ opinions differ. According to Jones, this may mean that Hadrian disenfranchised the Jewish and Samaritan aristocracies that had hitherto ruled the Galilean cities where the coins have been found and entrusted their government to pagans,158 a decision that according to Oppenheimer may have contributed to the arousal of ill-will among the Jews.159 This possibility is rejected by Schwartz, according to whom the councilors were always, like the cities themselves, mostly of Jewish background, but at different times in the course of the later first and second centuries they came to adopt, at the very least, important elements of the common urban culture of the Roman east, suffused though this culture was with Greek, Roman, and Greco-Semitic religion.160 Meshorer, on the other hand, suggests connecting the cessation of minting at Sepphoris with the anger of the Roman Emperor toward the Jews because of the revolt which had taken place in Trajan’s time on the ground that “Sepphoris, being one of the very few places inhabited only by Jews, was apparently regarded as representative of the Jewish people, and, as such, singled out for punishment,”161 while Chancey 155

 Meshorer (1979), 164; Meshorer (2001), 167.  Chancey (2005), 188; Weikert (2016), 248. 157  Although there are few parallels, it is known that some rulers in the Hellenistic period funded local silver coins from tax revenues. See Meyers, Meyers and Hendin (2015), 135-136. 158  Jones (1931), 82, followed by Meyers (1976), 326. See also Isaac and Roll [1979] (1998a), 193. 159  Oppenheimer (1977), 61-62; idem (1991), 34-35. See also Grabbe (1992), 574. 160  Schwartz (2001), 142. 161  Meshorer (1979), 165. 156

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

115

points out that the civic currency was issued sporadically rather than at regular intervals, and therefore the absence of coins under Hadrian may have been accidental.162 Whatever may have been the case, as Ariel and Bijovski point out, something must have changed at Sepphoris in the period from the minting of the Sepphoris coins depicting Trajan’s bust – with aniconic reverses – and the next series under Antoninus Pius, which shows two temples in the city, one dedicated to the Capitoline Triad and the other to Tyche.163 In fact, starting from the time of Hadrian, a new trend is to be found in the coinage of the northern cities of Judaea, which present the images of deities such as Zeus, Sarapis and Poseidon, and goddesses like Hygieia, Nike and Tyche.164 At Tiberias, a coin issued in 119/120 portrays Tyche, a personification of the city itself, holding a long scepter and a bust, which has been identified as that of Hadrian,165 an image which, according to Sigismund, makes the coin a strong signal of the city’s loyalty to the emperor and a symbol of its Romanization.166 Another coin represents Nike, the goddess of victory, carrying a palm-branch and a wreath with which to crown the victor.167 The suggestion of Smallwood that this image referred to the recent successful Roman military action against the Jews has been rejected by Kindler and by Sigismund,168 and in fact, the image of Nike frequently appears on Hadrianic coins and may just signify imperial victories generally.169 Yet, having being issued in 118/119,170

162

 See Chancey (2005), 188, note 108.  Ariel and Bijovski (2018), 507. 164  Kindler (1961), 20-21 and 88, no. 7b. See Schäfer (1990), 286-287. 165  RPC III, 1, no. 3933. Kindler (1961), 38-39, points out that as in the case of similar coin-types struck in other Palestinian cities, such as Caesarea Maritima, where the bust can clearly be identified as that of the emperor, it must be assumed that here, too, the goddess carries the portrait bust of Hadrian in her right hand, thus symbolizing the allegiance of the city to the emperor. This type was struck only once at Tiberias in 119/120 CE under the emperor Hadrian. See also Belayche (2003), 111-138. 166  Sigismund (2007), 328. 167  RPC III, 1, no. 3934. 168  Smallwood (1962), 507; Kindler (1961), 39-40, no. 8b; Sigismund (2007), 329. 169  RPC III, 1, no. 514. 170  RPC III, 1, nos. 509-510. 163

116

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

it is also not impossible that this particular coin may have referred to Hadrian’s final victory over the Jewish Diaspora Uprising.171 These iconographic developments are certainly products of a slow development, which may have been accelerated both by the influence of the coins of their neighboring cities,172 where the adoption of the imagery of deities, temples and emperors indicated their elites’ fullscale participation in this aspect of the civic culture of the eastern Roman Empire,173 and by the visit of Hadrian to Judaea.174 On this occasion, new temples were being built or re-dedicated to Hadrian, such as that mentioned by Epiphanius,175 which has been identified with a tetrastyle temple which appears on a coin found at Tiberias176 dated to the year 118/119,177 and the temple built at Caesarea.178 Temples dedicated to the cult of the living emperor were no novelty. Between 117 and 121, an impressive number of temples dedicated to the cult of Hadrian is attested both in the western and in the eastern part of the empire. The statement found in the Historia Augusta, “[at Athens Hadrian] dedicated … an altar to himself; and in the same way, while travelling through Asia, he consecrated the temples called by his name,”179 is amply confirmed by the archaeological excavations.180 Sometimes the temples were in honor of Zeus and Hadrian181 – hence the epithet Olympios conferred on him by his 171

 The same may perhaps be said of a coin minted at Alexandria, where Nike and Hadrian appear, Nike standing and Hadrian seated, facing each other (RPC III, 1, no. 5167). 172  See Hendin (1987), 129-170. On the iconography of the coins issued at the time at Caesarea, see Amandry and Burnett (2015), vol. 3, part 1, 515. 173  See Chancey (2005), 189. 174  Weikert (2016), 248. On the impact of Hadrian’s visit on the coinages of Gaba, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Petra, Ptolemais, Caesarea, Ascalon and Gaza, see Amandry and Burnett (2015), vol. 3, part 1, 506-527. 175  Panarion 30, 12. 176  See Kindler (1961), 39, no. 7b; Schäfer (1981), 93, note 67; Meshorer (1985), 34; Schäfer (1990), 286-287; Sigismund (2007), 328 and Mor (2016), 118, note 476. 177  Amandry and Burnett (2015), 509. This identification, however, has been challenged. See Boatwright (2000), 24, note 30 and by Kushnir-Stein (2008), 130. 178  See Holum (1992), 59. 179  HA, Hadr., 13, 6. See the bibliography cited by Stern (1980), 395. On the cult of the emperor-worship established by Hadrian, see Thornton (1975), 456, 459. 180  See Le Glay (1976), 357-360; Witulski (2010), 91-139; Weikert (2016), 250; Gülbay (2018), 232. 181  See Boatwright (2000), 139.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

117

Fig. 21. Hadrian. Tiberias. Temple with four columns enclosing Zeus seated, with patera and scepter. Kindler (1961), 88, no. 7b. RPC III, 1, no. 3932. CNG The Coin Shop 872672.

subjects in the Greek East, which equated him with ‘the Father of men and gods’ and ‘the Father of gods and King of men.’182 In many other cases, however, as at Cyzikos, at Smyrna and at Ephesos, Hadrian was worshipped neither together with nor as Zeus:183 the enormous temples built in these cities were dedicated to the worship of Hadrian himself.184 182  Since 129, Hadrian is called Olympios in an extraordinarily great number of Greek inscriptions. See Benjamin (1963), 59 and 61-71; Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 107, note 98; Eck (1982), 223; Zahrnt (1991), 479, note 431; Boatwright (2000), 138, note 118; Jones (2006), 153 and Eck (2009), 224. See also Gülbay (2018), 233. On the identification of Hadrian as son of Zeus the Liberator, see Raubitschek (1945), 128-133, and on the concept of coexistence of Greek and Roman traditions see Gülbay (2018), 231-237. 183  At Ephesos, the archaeological excavations show that the Hadrianeion and the Olympieion were two distinct buildings. See Jones (1993), 149-152. 184  Each of these towns were allowed by Hadrian to build such a temple and to take the title neokoros, ‘temple warden,’ a title that was granted to cities of the Hellenistic east in which their provincial organizations (koina) had built a temple to the living emperor. See Burrell (2003), 3-50.

118

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

There is no doubt that these developments had meaningful repercussions upon the life of Judean Jews. Then, the year 130 saw the arrival of Hadrian in Judaea. HADRIAN’S VISIT TO JUDAEA The scanty and indirect testimonies we have about the visit of Hadrian to Judaea may be combined to form an intelligible picture when considered against the background of what is known in general about imperial visits in the provinces. These visits, which were highly ritualized, had an extraordinary political importance for the future interrelations between the emperor and the elites of the provinces, having both the purpose and the effect of encouraging the loyalty of the local elites to Rome.185 From the Latin literature it emerges, that the very appearance of the emperor at the gates of a city was considered a source of well-being for his subjects, up to the point of being compared to the epiphany of a god.186 A city’s populace, in groups according to age on the one hand, and to official status on the other, would appear in a welcoming procession. The ruler thus encountered an orderly and organized body of citizens, headed by the dignitaries, with whom business could be transacted. An orator spoke on behalf of all of the city, expressing admiration and affection for the visitor, and all together they would solemnly conduct the emperor into the city, amid songs of praise and offerings for his well-being.187 Part of the ceremony was the opening of all the temples of the place, where the priests sacrificed for the wellbeing of the emperor.188 The emperor himself would sacrifice in the main local temple189 and would preside over contests in the 185  Holum (1992), 51, observes that a good deal of what the emperor did was to communicate with the cities, by correspondence, embassy, or in person, and much of this communication promoted Roman types of behavior among the cities and their inhabitants, whether by offering improvements in city status, the granting of benefits, or settling disputes among cities or individuals along approved lines. See also Weikert (2016), 250. 186  Witulski (2012), 163, note 709 and 240, note 348. 187  MacCormack (1981), 21. 188  Halfmann (1986), 114. 189  For examples, see Halfmann (1986), 114-117.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

119

amphitheatre or circus and an assembly of the people in the theatre. An imperial visit was likewise an occasion for hearing legal disputes and petitions, for conferring honors on cities, such as the rank metropolis, and invariably for the announcement of imperial beneficia (‘benefactions’). Cassius Dio declares that Hadrian had visited more cities than any other emperor, “and he assisted practically all of them, giving to some a water supply, to others harbours, food, public works, money and various honors.”190 Naturally, the local grandees would be expected to join in. They too would announce urban construction projects, or would devote their considerable resources to hosting the emperor and his entourage in style. An adventus of this type was a highly practical transaction. Through it both emperor and city promised appropriate behavior toward one another in the future, while the public words and ceremonies symbolized the relationship of ruler and ruled, which meant that the two sides were expected to work out an understanding, sanctioning it with acts of devotion and patronage.191 The ritual of the adventus created for the first time the opportunity of direct contact with the emperor, which implied a general consensus, consensus omnium, and had a long-range effect, well beyond the visit itself, since the presence of the emperor was often believed to be equal to the power of the gods in bestowing health and blessings, and it was strengthened through the imperial beneficia like building activities and privileges.192 The itinerary of Hadrian’s visit to the East has been tentatively laid down by Holum. After his visit to Asia Minor, Hadrian visited Syria in 129/130,193 where he granted the title of metropolis to the cities of Damascus and Tyre, which had the result of diminishing the sphere of authority of Antioch, which had hitherto been the sole official metropolis.194 Then he visited Palmyra early in 130, where 190

 69, 5, 3.  Holum (1992), 51-52. 192  Halfmann (1986), 111. On the “philhellenic” character of Hadrian’s policy, see Vout (2010), 55-56. 193  On the chronology of Hadrian’s visit in Laodicea, Apamea, Antioch, see Jones (2009), 457-458. 194  Bowersock (1985), 76-77. According to Schwartz (1983), 299, he was at Antioch on 23 June 129. 191

120

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

one of the local aristocracy furnished oil for the imperial entourage and other services for the troops, and announced that he intended to undertake the construction of a new vestibule and other ornamentation for the temple of Zeus/Baalshamin. Passing through Damascus, Hadrian arrived at Bostra, the provincial capital of Arabia and garrison site of the legio III Cyrenaica, and from there followed the Via Nova Traiana southward along the Arabian borders through Philadelphia/Amman to Petra. This route would account for a milestone that indicates road repair near Philadelphia/Amman and towards Petra in 129.195 Probably in connection to this visit, Petra renamed itself Hadriane Petra.196 Then Hadrian ‘traversed Arabia,’197 and Imperial coins, bearing the legends ADVENTVS AVG ARABIAE198 and RESTITVTORI ARABIAE,199 suggest a comprehensive Arabian itinerary. Then he took a road northwest to Gerasa of the Decapolis, where the city dedicated a magnificent triumphal arch to him on the occasion of his visit200 and three statues, all of them dated by the 14th tribunician power to the year 130, as was customary all over the empire in honor of an emperor on the move.201 From there he would have proceeded north-westward through other cities of the Decapolis, crossing below Pella into the Jordan Valley and the province of Judaea.202 According to the itinerary envisaged by Holum, if the imperial entourage entered Judaea on the road from Gerasa to Scythopolis, its route would have taken them near to Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, where the temple dedicated to Hadrian mentioned above was found, which appears never to have been completed.203 195

 Holum (1992), 53 and note 16.  On the earliest evidence of the name Hadriane for Petra, see Kushnir-Stein (1990), 192. Its use in the coins of Petra during the second century CE is fairly consistent. See Spijkerman (1978), 220-221, nos. 4-5; 222-223, nos. 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 and Meshorer (1985), 106. 197  Peragrata Arabia (HA, Hadr., 14, 4). 198  RIC II, 452, no. 878. 199  RIC II, 484, nos. 943-944. 200  Welles (1938), 401-402, no. 58; Kraeling (1938), 50-51. 201  Cotton (2007), 399-400. 202  On chronological details of Hadrian’s visit to Judaea, see above, 30-31. 203  Panarion 30, 12. See above, 116. 196

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

121

After Tiberias, Hadrian visited Scythopolis,204 which seems to have been completely redesigned after his visit. We learn that a Caesareum was built, or renovated, on this occasion,205 and a stratigraphic analysis of the main architectural monuments, supported by dateable finds and other related materials, makes it more and more evident that the new urban plan of the city center, with colonnaded thoroughfares and broad porticoes which replaced the old and un-colonnaded streets according to an unic and pre-planned conception, probably started at the time of Hadrian’s visit,206 as is suggested by an inscription found at the cultic compound near the theatre.207 We therefore understand why more than two hundred years later, a governor of the city is said to have built something not identified for his mother city “in imitation of Hadrian” (Adrianon mimesamenos).208 Probably on occasion of Hadrian’s visit, monuments were erected in honor of the emperor, and the building activity may have been so wide and substantial that it kept his name fresh in the city’s memory as a great builder, as he was considered in other parts of the Roman empire.209 Hadrian’s visit was probably the occasion for development also at Salumias (Salem), a place in fertile surroundings with a legionary camp seven miles south of Scythopolis, where a route across the Jordan from Gerasa meets the Jericho road.210 From Scythopolis Hadrian may have proceeded up the Jezreel valley, on a road under repair in 129,211 to Caparcotna (Legio), which had recently been made headquarters of a second Roman legion in the provincial garrison of Judaea. For obvious reasons, when an emperor visited a province, his itinerary was likely to include the legionary camps, especially those which had been established a short 204

 Mazor (2004), 9 note 28.  Mazor and Najjar (2007), 186 and Mazor (2016), 364 emphasize the location of the colonnaded compound within the civic center and next to the public agora, which clearly demonstrates its role as a state agora, and its remarkable resemblance to the Caesareum compounds of Cyrene, Cremna and Palmyra, all dated to Hadrian’s reign. 206  Di Segni and Arubas (2009), 137*-139*. 207  Mazor (2007), 4. 208  Di Segni and Arubas (2009), 133* 209  Di Segni and Arubas (2009), 138*-139*. 210  Horbury (2014), 279. 211  Holum (1992), 54. 205

122

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

time before. For this occasion, it appears, repairs were made to the road from Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) to Caparcotna (Legio).212 A side journey to Sepphoris is likely, since it was then, perhaps, that this major Galilean city was renamed, or renamed itself, Diocaesarea, ‘city of Zeus and Caesar’213 and received the official title Diokaisareia iera asulos kai autonomous.214

Fig. 22. Antoninus Pius. Sepphoris renamed Diocaesarea. CNG Triton XXV- Session 5 January 25, 2022, Lot: 5303.

Then Hadrian would have proceeded across the Carmel via Wadi ‘Ara and on to Caesarea, which had been a provincial capital for the past sixty years215 and where a wholly Romanized aristocracy was to be found.216 Here Hadrian’s reign has left its mark on the city in the 212

 Isaac and Roll [1979] (1998a), 186; Isaac (2015), 42.  On coins, the name Diocaesarea appears since the days of Antoninus Pius, but a milestone bearing the legend ‘Diocaesarea,’ dating to 130, was found on the newly built road from Acco to Tiberias, which confirms that the change of the name occurred during Hadrian’s reign. See Meyers (1992), 326 and Horbury (2014), 283. According to Freyne (1980), 90, on this occasion Hadrian increased the territory of the city. 214  See Schäfer (1990), 284; Meshorer (1985), 37, no. 93; Mor (2016), 118, note 475. 215  It had been proclaimed a Roman colony on March 5, 71 CE. See Patrich (2011), 90. 216  See Holum (1992), 51-61 and Lehmann and Holum (2000), 20-24. It appears that the members of Caesarea’s aristocracy used Latin not only in dedications to Roman officials, but also in order to record their private acts in public. Eck (2003a), 133, points out that “one is struck by the strong Latin character presented by this colony, which can only be accounted for if we allow for the settling there of 213

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

123

water supply, which was improved by the addition of a second channel to the high-level aqueduct,217 and may have been also responsible for the monumentalization of its streets, for laying one or more colonnaded thoroughfares and the city’s celebrated tetrapylon – probably a quadruple-arched gateway roofed with a dome. Holum points out: needless to say, the evidence does not prove that Hadrian financed or ordered construction of the circus, city walls, streets, or tetrapylon at Caesarea. Indications of chronological proximity are significant, however, because they indicate construction works that might have involved Hadrian. It was projects of this type, large enough to put several strain upon the city’s own resources, that an emperor would announce upon his adventus as his part of the transaction.218

Here, too, a Hadrianeum was dedicated to the emperor.219 Since cities or local officials frequently dedicated such temples after securing the emperor’s permission on the occasion of his adventus, it is possible to associate this Hadrianeum with Hadrian’s visit at Caesarea,220 where, some years later, the cult of Antinous may have spread, as one may a large dose of ‘native speakers’ at the time when the colony was founded.” These native speakers have been identified by Cotton and Eck (2002), 383-384 with the veterans established there by Vespasian: “the assumption that a significant number of veterans were settled in Caesarea right from the beginning of its life as a colony makes it easier to understand why Latin was by no means restricted to official expressions, but could be displayed in public as the natural idiom members of the city’s decurionate class would use in the late first century, throughout the second century and probably well into the third century.” See also Eck (2014a), 150-162. On the integration of leading families into the imperial administration in Judaea, see also Eck [1999] (2014d), 81. 217  Isaac (2011), 28. The activities of the legio VI Ferrata on the local aqueduct are attested just before Hadrian’s visit. See Bowersock (1980), 134 and Lehmann and Holum (2000), 71-77, inscriptions nos. 45-54. On the problems raised by the sources concerning this aqueduct, see also Holum (1992), 55-58; Boatwiright (2000), 140 and Isaac (2011), 28. 218  Holum (1992), 58. 219  Lehmann and Holum (2000), 80-81, no. 58 = CIIP II, 1262, attests that sometime between the mid-fifth and early sixth centuries its steps were reconstructed: “Under Flavius Euelpidius… and Helius… the basilica along with… the steps of the Hadrianeum were constructed in the first indiction, with good fortune.” Although no trace of the building remains, a colossal porphyry statue of an emperor possibly identified with Hadrian was found in the immediate vicinity, which may have been a cult-statue. See Avi-Yona (1970), 207. On Hadrian’s visit at Caesarea, see Holum (1992), 51-61. 220  Holum (1992), 59.

124

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

surmise from the fact that a statue of Antinous was found in loco,221 probably dating to the third century.222 In honor of Hadrian’s visit, many cities introduced new calendars that began from the year of the imperial visit, and festivals meant to commemorate the event were instituted.223 At Gerasa and Philadelphia, and also at Gaza and at Ascalon, a new era appears on the coins, which was meant to commemorate Hadrian’s visit.224 On this occasion, as happened in other cities such as Cyzikos, Ephesos, Smyrna and Antioch,225 an annual ‘Hadrianic festival’ was instituted at Gaza,226 and the city resumed its coin production after an interruption of several decades.227 221

 Within the course of a few years the cult of Antinous was spread throughout the Empire, with commemorative festivals and games being held in his honor and temples and altars erected, and with hundred of statues being sculpted for cultic usage. See Den Boer (1955), 134-140; Birley (1997), 259 and 350, note 1; Vout (2010), 60. About this cult, Jews may have had distinctly negative views. Applebaum (1976), 6-7, for example, observes: “even among the aristocrats of a permissive age, criticism was subsequently implied or uttered, and, for the Jews, this was the deification of homosexuality…. In short, a gigantic campaign devoted to the propagation, strengthening and glorification of idol-worship along the centers of the same Greek population that had been engaged in sanguinary conflict with the Jewries of the eastern Mediterranean for over two centuries, that had been resuscitated thanks to Pompey’s destruction of the Hasmonean kingdom, and aided Titus to destroy the temple – had culminated in the blasphemous selfdeification of the ruler and the apotheosis of homosexuality.” Criticism of this cult, however, may also have been found in Rome among senatorial circles. See Zahrnt (1988a), 702. 222  Eck, CIIP II (2011), 368. According to White (2016), 37, the cult is known to have flourished well into the fourth century, when it fell victim to the ban on pagan religions under the emperor Theodosius the First in 391. 223  Halfmann (1986), 112. 224  See Kubitschek (1916), 29-32; Mildenberg (1984), 101-102; Meshorer (1985), 29-30; Halfmann (1986), 193 and Holum (1992), 55 and 55, note 31. On the coins issued at Gaza, the exceptional manner of the reckoning, not only according to its usual era, but also according to the years of Hadrian’s visit, and the unusual placing of the date, on the obverse instead of the reverse, were most probably intended to emphasize the extraordinary character of the occasion on which these coins were struck (Kushnir-Stein [1990], 185-186). 225  Halfmann (1986), 112. 226  On the panegyris Adriane at Gaza, see Kindler (1975), 63; Bowersock (1980), 134 and Kushnir-Stein (1990), 188. 227  See Rosenberger (1975), 54-57, nos. 52-69 and Mildenberg (1984), 102. At the beginning, its emissions are dated solely by ‘year 2’ of the imperial visit, epi(demia). Then followed issues dated ‘year 3’ of the epi(demia) (131/2 AD), and

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

125

All these signs of honorific tributes are particularly remarkable in view of the fact that when a ruler visited a part of the realm, its inhabitants were obliged to bear the expenses for his entertainment and for that of his, often very large, retinue, which means that such a reception entailed quite considerable costs and expenditure for the people concerned, who, as Sijpesteijn emphasizes, were therefore visited in more than one sense of the word.228 The repair and/or constructions of new roads in preparation for the imperial visit, too, fell, at least in part, on the local population.229 The new eras and the festivals established, therefore, may be an indication that the advantages received, or expected, were more meaningful that the expenses undergone. In southern Judaea, too, we learn from an inscription published by Leah Di Segni that the inhabitants of the village Caparbanaia, to be probably identified with Khirbet Benaya,230 erected what was probably an altar to the Olympian gods for the safety of Hadrian, who is called pater patridos, savior and benefactor.231 The message conveyed by this dedication is that in Judaea, no less than elsewhere, Hadrian was celebrated by members of a village community according to the same patterns of interrelations between ruler and subject familiar from other provinces,232 and it is probably these parts of the country that Weikert233 has in mind when he argues that the integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire, which started in Pompey’s days,234 was an accomplished fact. after that, the series with double dates continues almost uninterruptedly until 136/7. See Kindler (1975), 64-65 and Kushnir-Stein (1990), 188. The new eras adopted on coins under Hadrian were dropped after his death. See Kushnir-Stein (2005), 160-161. 228  Classical literature contains numerous other instances of the hardship suffered and expenditure incurred through the reception of visitors of high rank. On the evidence from Egypt, see Sijpesteijn (1969), 109-110. 229  On the expenditures involved, see Kissel (2002), 150, 158. 230  On the possible identification of this village, not in Samaria as previously assumed but rather in Southern Judaea, see Di Segni (2003), 336-339. 231  A first reading of the inscriptions is given in Di Segni (1994), 579-584 = SEG 44, no. 1361 = AE 1994, no. 1781. A more recent reading appears in Di Segni (2003), 336. As for the title pater patriae, it starts appearing on the inscriptions written between 11 October 127 and 18 February 129. See Eck (2009), 227 and (2011), 221. 232  Eck (2003), 156. 233  Weikert (2016), 263. 234  See Shatzman (1999), 77-84.

126

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

All in all, it is clear that Hadrian’ adventus in 130 was celebrated in Judaea in the usual forms.235 As happened in the case of all Hadrian’s journeys around the provinces, his visit to Judaea, too, was commemorated by an issue of coins, the so-called Adventus-coins,236 which display the bust of Hadrian on the obverse with his titles, while on the reverse Hadrian is presented standing before the personification of the province, who is portrayed as an elegant woman in Greek-Roman dress, wearing chiton and himation and holding a patera in her hand237 over an altar, and behind the altar is a sacrificial animal in miniature.238 There are three version of the coin of the adventus-type in Judaea, which display minor differences concerning the number and the position of the children. In one, three naked children appear, two at the right and one at the left of the woman, holding tall palm-branches, which often appeared during the formal arrival of the emperor.239

Fig. 23. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE, Example no. 1. RIC II, 454, no. 893. CNG Feature Auction 114, Lot: 871.

235

 Cotton (2007), 399-400.  RIC II, 454, nos. 890-894. On the different types of provincial coins issued by Hadrian, the Provincia type, the Adventus type, the Exercitus-type and the Restitutor-type, see Zahrnt (2007), 195-196. 237  Perhaps a censer, according to Ostrowski (1990), 179. The personification of provinces as women was usual in Roman coins. See Zahrnt (2007), 207. 238  See Ciecielag (2006), 108. 239  See Ostrowski (1990), 182. 236

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

Fig. 24. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 893. Design by Tameanko (1999), 23.

Another version has one child at each side of the woman

Fig. 25. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 890. Design by Tameanko (1999), 22.

127

128

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

while a third version has one child at each side of the altar.

Fig. 26. Hadrian. Sestertius. AVENTVI AVG IUDAEAE. RIC II, 454, no. 894. Design by Tameanko (1999), 22.

The titles of Hadrian appearing on these coins, HADRIANUS AUG COS III PP, offer no precise date, allowing us only to establish a terminus post quem, the year 128, when he formally accepted the title pater patriae.240 Scholars date these coins to the last years of Hadrian’s reign, between 134 and 138.241 This, however, is doubtful, since in the period between 134 and 136 the fighting of the Bar Kokhba War was taking place,242 which makes the issue of these coins altogether improbable, and, moreover, in 136 the name of the province had already been changed to Syria Palaestina. The new name appears for the first time in an inscription from Aequum, in Dalmatia, dated to the beginning of 136, which celebrates Gnaeus Minicius Faustinus Sextus Iulius Severus, a Roman senator who distinguished himself in the repression of the Bar Kokhba War and was awarded 240  The title pater patriae starts appearing on the inscriptions written between 11 October 127 and 18 February 129. See Eck (2009), 227 and idem (2011), 221. 241  Mattingly and Sydenham (1968), 332; Kreitzer (1989), 278; Ostrowski (1998), 148; Ciecielag (2006), 107-108. 242  On the reasons which lead Eck to date the end of the Roman final victory to the year 136, see Eck (1999), 87-88.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

129

the ornamenta triumphalia by Hadrian at the war’s conclusion.243 The fact that on the Adventus-coins the name of the province is still spelled IUDAEA, therefore, suggests that they were issued before the Bar Kokhba War, most probably on the occasion of Hadrian’s visit to Judaea in 130.244 As for their meaning, the Adventus-coins were supposed to remind the local inhabitants of the historical event of the emperor’s visit, of his salutary presence, of his future help as restitutor, and of his deeds for the sake of their security, even when he himself was not in the province – in one word, these coins were meant to be a constant reminder of Hadrian’s advancement of the provincial interests.245 Since they present the usual pattern of the Roman Adventus-type coins, where the province is presented according to the idealized convention of the artistic trends of the time,246 these coins are often taken to reflect the goodwill of Hadrian while touring the province.247 Zahrnt points out that they attest to Hadrian’s recognition of the importance of the province for the Roman empire,248 and Witulski observes that the fact that Hadrian does not appear alone but in company of the provincial person shows that he did not exclude himself from the local population; moreover, he is presented as wearing a toga and not in military dress, which indicates that he did not come as a conqueror, but rather as a ruler interested in promoting the welfare of the inhabitants.249 A close look at these coins, however, may reveal additional aspects. In particular, the detail of the woman representing Judaea, who is

 Gn(aeo) Iul(io) S[evero] co(n)s(uli), le[g(ato) Aug(usti)] pr(o) pr(aetore) pr[ovinc(iae)] Syriae Pa[laestinae], triumf[alibus ornamen]tis ]honorato ----] (AE 1904, no. 9). See Eck (2003), 168-169. The new name is then attested on a coin issued at Neapolis in 158/159, where on the reverse we read “Flavia Neapolis which is in Syria Palaestina.” See Hendin (1987), 145, no. 253 and Kindler (1991), 290. On the change of the name of the province, see also Gichon (1986), 28, note 32; Eck (1999), 88, note 97; Eck (2007), 51, and Geiger (2016), 501. 244  Mildenberg (1984), 98 suggests that these coins were struck between 130 and 132. 245  Witulski (2010), 164-165. 246  Ostrowski (1990), 183. 247  Eck (2014), 21. 248  Zahrnt (2007), 208. 249  Witulski (2012), 233-234, note 310. 243

130

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

presented in the act of performing the sacrifice ob adventum Augusti,250 is especially striking. It conveys the message that the province was regarded as a Hellenistic-Roman country like all other provinces,251 ignoring or disregarding the essential difference to be found between the other provinces and Judaea, where the Jews did not sacrifice on pagan altars – in fact, they considered this kind of sacrifice, avodah zarah (idolatry), as a betrayal of the very core of their monotheistic tradition. From this perspective, Applebaum claims that these coins are “ominously free of any allusion to the people who gave their name to the country” and that “whatever Hadrian’s notions of imperial tact, either he was relying on pliancy, or obstinate indifference, or what was regarded as a hellenised Jewish citizenry, or he was not interested in being tactful.”252 Gichon argues that the Judaea coins of Hadrian signify the hoped-for development of the province along Helleno-Roman lines and reflect Hadrian’s fatal self-deception about the seeming acceptance of the imperial initiative by all the provincials, including the Jews,”253 and Kreitzer, too, points out that “the portrayal of the personification of Judaea within the Hadrianic coinage must have been particularly galling to the Jewish nation,” and sees in these coins “a deliberate attempt to downplay any nationalistic tendencies or associations that provincial dress might have fostered in favor of presenting a provincial image more in keeping with Imperial interests.”254 One more sestertius was presumably issued by Hadrian on occasion of his visit to Judaea. One specimen is found in the National Museum of Naples255 and another in the S. Moussaieff Collection.256 Its obverse shows the bust of Hadrian with imperial cloak, breastplate and titles, while the reverse combines the legend characteristic of the Provincia-type coins, with the bare name of the province, IUDAEA, and the design which is common in the Restitutor-type coins, where 250

 Halfmann (1986), 114.  Malitz (2006), 145. 252  Applebaum (1976), 6. 253  Gichon (1986), 28, note 32. 254  Kreitzer (1996a), 215-216; Witulski (2012), 246. 255  Fiorelli (1870), 166. 256  Cayón (1984), 137, no. 459 A. The photo appears in https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=2942&lot=208. My warmest thanks to Prof. Giancarlo Lacerenza, of the University L’Orientale in Naples, for bringing this site to my attention, and, also, for providing me with the work by Laura Breglia. 251

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

131

the personification of the province is portrayed as a kneeling woman to whom Hadrian extends his right hand as if to help her raise, while three children stand beside her, holding palms.

Fig. 27. Hadrian. Sestertius. A combination of restitutor-type (in design) and adventus-type (legenda). Museum of Naples. Catalogo Fiorelli, no. 8405. Photo: Museum.

Fig. 28. Hadrian. Sestertius. A combination of restitutor-type (in design) and adventus-type (legenda). S. Moussaieff Collection. The New York Sale, Auction 45, Lot: 208.

As in the case of the Adventus coins, here, too, the titles of Hadrian, HADRIANUS AUG COS III PP, offer no precise date, allowing us only to establish a terminus post quem, the year 128, when he

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

132

formally accepted the title pater patriae.257 Scholars suggest interpreting this coin as a proclamation of Roman victory and of Judean submission, in a moment after the repression of the Bar Kokhba War, relying on the similarity of the design portrayed on the coin to that which appears on several Roman coins issued in the time of the Republic, where the kneeling woman represented a province which had rebelled against Rome and had been defeated.258 Strack points out that after a great number of Jews had fallen in the Bar Kokhba War, many others had perished by fire and sickness and almost one thousand villages had been destroyed, this coin presents Judaea as a landscape and not as a nation, for else it would have been presented as devicta. According to Strack, the motif of Judaea renascens was chosen by Hadrian in order to justify this bitterly fought war, while the young children represent the renewal of life.259 A similar meaning is suggested by Toynbee, and then by Breglia, by Kindler, and by Mildenberg, who observes that this may be a pointed reference to the new Greek Judaea with its rising population which Hadrian was creating around his new Jerusalem, the colony of Aelia Capitolina. This issue, therefore, fits perfectly into the emperor’s grand scheme of changing the character of the province and its Jewish population.260 257

 See above, note 240.  This is the case of the denarius serratus issued by Manius Aquillius in 71 BCE in order to recall the victory of his grandfather Manius Aquillius in the Second Servile War in Sicily, where the obverse has a helmeted and draped bust of Virtus, while in the reverse a soldier, probably Mn. Aquillius himself, holds a shield and lifts a female who is clearly identified by the legend as Sicily SICIL: Sydenham (1952), 132, no. 798; Crawford (1974), vol. 1, 412, no. 401. The image is taken by Crawford as referring also to the beneficia conferred on Sicily after the end of the war. This is also the case of a silver coin issued by another descendant of the same family, Lucius Aquillius Florus, where the obverse has the head of Augustus and the reverse displays an armed soldier raising a kneeling Sicily (RIC I, 71, no. 125). Less clear is the meaning of a denarius issued by Lucius Staius Murcus in 42/41 CE (RIC II, 276, no. 448), where the obverse has the head of Neptune, while on the reverse a soldier raises a kneeling woman, whose identity has been questioned, and behind them appears a trophy, with sword and shield. The kneeling woman is identified with Asia, but other possible interpretations have also been offered. See Zahrnt (2007), 200, note 18. 259  Strack (1933), 162-163. 260  Toynbee (1934), 121, note 1; Breglia (1968), 140; Kindler (1975), 62; Mildenberg (1984), 99. 258

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

133

As for the children holding the palms depicted on the coin, Breglia observes that they are apparently “an allusion to life taking root and flourishing once more where lately there had been nothing but a devastated wilderness,”261 Giuliano sees them as a symbol of the imperial clemency,262 and Ostrowski identifies them with the new Roman colonists established in the country, with palms in their hands symbolizing the Roman victory.263 The image of Judaea kneeling is interpreted as meaning Iudaea renascens, to whom Hadrian gives her a hand in a benevolent fashion. Kreitzer points out that the presentation of province Judaea within the imperial issues of Hadrian is revealing, for it appears that the aim was to present a sanitised and acceptable image of the personification of the province, while at the same time undermining any nationalistic sentiment on the part of the Jews living in that troubled province.264

These interpretations, however, do not take into account the fact, which has also been noticed by Zahrnt,265 that the name which appears on this coin is IUDAEA, which was no longer the name of the province after the Bar Kokhba War, when it was changed to Syria Palaestina.266 No real contradiction, however, is to be found between the design and the legend of this sestertius when one realizes how different was the meaning of this portrayal on the coins of the Republican period and on those issued in the Imperial time. In the latter, fashion and designs had noticeably changed, and victories over rebelling peoples were no longer displayed by the image of a Roman leader raising a kneeling female. Military victories were commemorated by coins displaying the name of the defeated country, in nominative, followed by the participle recepta, capta or devicta, while the image displayed 261

 Breglia (1968), 140.  Giuliano (1993), 7. 263  Ostrowski (1990), 180, no. 16 and 182. 264  Kreitzer (1989), 278, however, also realizes that Hadrian’s depiction of the personification of Judaea takes a deliberate step away from the usual militarized presentation that characterized the coinage of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian following the suppression of the First Jewish revolt. Cayón (1984), 137, too, dates this coin to the years 134-138. 265  Zahrnt (2007), 197, note 5. 266  The new name appears for the first time in an inscription from Aequum, in Dalmatia, dated to the beginning of 136. See above, 128-129. 262

134

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

its personification, often a female sitting in mourning or a man standing with bound hands behind his back.267 In Imperial times, the image of a Roman leader raising a kneeling female assumes a new meaning, which was no longer related to armed conflicts but rather conveyed a positive message of kindness, benefits and favors. In 12 BCE, an aureus was issued with the image of Augustus extending his right hand to a Res Publica kneeling before of him,268 and similarly, in 68 and in 69 CE, reverses are found with legends such as LIBERTAS RESTITUTA, with the image of Galba, standing and extending his right hand to raise a draped woman kneeling before him,269 and ROMA RESTI(tuta), with Galba standing and offering his hand to a kneeling woman who holds a child.270 During the short reign of Vitellius, too, a coin was issued reading URBEM RE(stituit), with the portrayal of Vitellius, extending his right hand to raise up 267  In Trajan’s reign, in particular, a multitude of different scenes are found on the numerous coins which commemorated his victory over Dacia. The legends are DACIA CAPTA (RIC II, 250, no. 96; 285, no. 585), PARTHIA CAPTA (RIC II, 267, no. 324) and ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P.R. REDACTAE (RIC II, 289, no. 642), while the images are of several different types. We find the personification of the province, Dacia, seated in an attitude of mourning on shield and arms (RIC II, 258, nos. 216-221; 284, nos. 560-564); seated on a pile of arms (284, nos. 565-566); kneeling, hands behind back, surrounded by weapons (RIC II, 288, no. 620); under the right knee of the Tiber, who forces it to the ground (RIC II, 283, no. 556) and under the foot of a figure representing Pax: see Curtis (2012), 351. In other coins, the figure of a Dacian appears, in various positions: seated on a pile of arms, resting his head on his left hand (RIC II, 249, no. 78); seated close to a trophy (RIC II, 250, no. 88); seated on a shield in an attitude of morning (RIC II, 250, no. 89; 251, nos. 97-98); standing with his hands bound and various arms on the ground (RIC II, 251, no. 99); kneeling and extending a shield to Trajan (RIC II, 258, no. 214; 276, no. 447); under the foot of Trajan, who stands and holds a scepter (RIC II, 282, no. 547); or presented to the senate by Trajan (RIC II, 258, no. 215). Exceptional, it appears, is the coin which has a laureate head of Trajan on the obverse, while the reverse shows Trajan standing with spear, while a figure representing Rome, seated, extends her hand to a kneeling Dacian (RIC II, 276, no. 448). 268  RIC I (1984), 73, no. 413. Zanker (1990), 90-92, observes that on the arch put up by the senate for Augustus after the civil war, too, stood the legend “res publica restituta:” “Octavian had saved the republic from destruction, and now it was up to him to ‘restore it.’” 269  RIC I, 215, no. 153. RIC I, 210, nos. 105-107, too, have the same legend but with a different image. 270  RIC I, 216, no. 156.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

135

a helmeted woman kneeling before him,271 and in Trajan’s time, too, a coin was issued where he is presented as extending his hand to a kneeling Rome, with two children between them,272 where the legend ROMA REST(ituita) probably referred to his extensive public programs and his social welfare policies.273 The coins with the legend REST(ituta) ITAL(ia), too, which present the figure of Italy kneeling and raised by Trajan,274 had probably a similar meaning, and it may be no accident that in the same years coins were issued with the legends ALIM. ITAL.,275 AQUA TRAIANA276 and PORTUM TRAIANI.277 In Hadrian’s time, a proliferation of Restitutor-type coins was issued, which represented a new conception of the Empire, founded primarily on the political and cultural assimilation of the provinces. Their importance in Hadrian’s time finds expression in the strengthening of the ties of the local leadership with the central government, in impressive building projects, in the creation of new municipia and colonies and in his famous travels,278 and is also emphasized in his coinage. The message of Hadrian’s provincial coins is often defined propagandistic,279 and no contradiction is necessarily involved in the question as to whether they reflected the emperor’s choice or that of the people in charge of choosing the images, such as the senatorial tresviri monetales, or a high imperial official like the secretary a rationibus, or a lower mint official like the procurator monetae, since they, too, were certainly 271

 RIC I, 227, no. 16. See Zahrnt (2007), 206.  RIC II, 279, no. 474. 273  On the reformed alimentary system, which was welcomed as an expression of Trajan’s liberalitas and his indulgentia, see Bennet (1997), 81-84. 274  RIC II, 278, nos. 470, 472, 473. On one of these coins (RIC II, 251, no. 105), the figure of Italy holds a globe, and between her and Trajan appear two children. 275  RIC II, 277, no. 459; 278, no. 460. 276  RIC II, 278, no. 463. 277  RIC II, 278, no. 471. 278  On the material support bestowed on the provinces, thoroughly attested by the epigraphic and the literary sources, see among others Boatwright (2000), 108143. On the Hadrianic coins the Restitutor motif as an expression of the economic promotion and the advancement of the province by the emperor, see Zahrnt (2007), 208. The importance of the provinces in Hadrian’s policy is also attested by the relief displaying the personifications of the various provinces which appears in the Hadrianeum in Rome built by Antoninus Pius. See Cancik (1997), 136-138. 279  See Levick (1982), 108 and Sutherland (1983), 74. 272

136

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

interested in popularizing what the emperor wished to be seen. Both the obverse and the reverse images were value-laden: they set a model to the user, appealed to values which he ought to share, and encouraged him to share them. While the emperor’s head was a symbol of authority, the reverse images specified one of the reasons for which he was to be respected and admired.280 The provincial sestertii issued in Hadrian’s time were meant to express his care for the welfare of the provincial world, in accordance with a new pax Augusta of sorts, founded primarily on its political and cultural assimilation and integration in the imperial system.281 The Restitutor motif appears for the first time in a sestertius, where the reverse presents the figure of Hadrian standing to the right and dressed in a toga, holding a scroll in his left hand and extending his right hand toward a kneeling woman in an attempt to raise her. She is draped, wears a mural crown and holds a globe balanced on her knee, from which it may be deduced that she is a personification of the world.282 The inscription reads RESTITUTORI ORBIS TERRARUM,283 and was seemingly meant to convey the message of Hadrian’s benevolent concern for the whole of the Empire.284 280

 Wallace-Hadrill (1986), 67.  Kreitzer (1996), 153; Ziosi (2018), 133. 282  On the meaning of the globe, see Arnaud (1983), 53-116. Mattingly and Sydenham date this coin to the years 119 and 121, but other dates have been suggested too. See Zahrnt (2007), 209, note 47. 283  RIC II, 416, no. 594 and 418, no. 603. See Zahrnt (2007), 208-209. 284  Kreitzer (1996), 150. Here, Zahrnt points out (2007), 209, notes 49, 51 and 211-212, note 57, the term Restitutor is probably the Latin equivalent for Ktistes in the sense of ‘benefactor,’ and may refer to Hadrian’s extensively promoted building activity, both in Rome and in the provinces. This coin recalls the testimony of the HA, according to which large sums of money, games and spectacles were provided by Hadrian for the people of Rome, and may also refer to the cancellation of arrears of taxation for the past fifteen years, the bonds being burnt in the Forum of Trajan (see also HA, Hadr., 7, 6: “He remitted to private debtors in Rome and in Italy immense sums of money owed to the privy-purse, and in the provinces he remitted large amounts of arrears; and he ordered the promissory notes to be burned in the Forum of the Deified Trajan”). It may also hint to his scheme for the ‘alimentation’ of poor children “He made additional appropriations for the children to whom Trajan had allotted grants of money” (HA, Hadr., 7, 8) and to the fact that he renounced the aurum coronarium, the large sum of money which the provinces had to send to emperors upon imperial accessions. See also HA, Hadr., 7, 9-11 on other achievements and Zahrnt (2007), 209-210. 281

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

137

Fig. 29. Hadrian. Sestertius. RESTITVTORI ORBIS TERRARUM. RIC II, 416, no. 594 and 418, no. 603. CNG eAuction 298. Lot: 157.

Fig. 30. Hadrian. Sestertius. RESTITVTORI ORBIS TERRARUM. Design by Rosemary Lehan in Kreitzer (1996), 150, fig. 2.

The coin is a precursor to later and large issues of sestertii, where the obverse has the portrait of Hadrian, and on the reverse, dressed in a toga, he stands, often holding a scroll in one hand, and extending his other hand to the personification kneeling before him. By this gesture he appears to be raising the personification to her feet: hence the inscriptional reference to Hadrian as the ‘Restorer,’ with the name of the province in genitive. The personification of the province is draped and is often shown in characteristic provincial dress or with

138

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

native attributes of her land, while on some of the issues there is an item of further symbolic significance between the two figures.285 The reverse of one coin has the legend RESTITUTORI ITALIAE, with the personification draped and holding a cornucopia in her left hand,286 which may stand as a symbol of the rich blessings which the province provided to the Empire, and may commemorate the visit of Hadrian through Italia to Campania early in his reign in 119, in the course of which he bestowed imperial gifts and benefits to many cities.

Fig. 31. Hadrian. Sestertius. RESTITVTORI ITALIAE. RIC II, 466, no. 956. CNG Feature Auction 67. Lot: 1491, September 22, 2004.

The same scene appears on a coin with the inscription RESTITUTORI AFRICAE, where the province wears an elephant-trunk headdress and holds corn-ears in her left hand while in the center there are corn-ears growing.287 It was probably issued when Hadrian visited the country in 128, and there, according to the HA, “showed many acts of kindness.”288 285

 Kreitzer (1996), 154.  RIC II, 377, no. 328; 466, no. 956. 287  RIC II, 377, no. 322. The same in RIC II, 463, nos. 940-942. See Kreitzer (1996), 165. 288  HA, Hadr., 13, 4. 286

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

139

Fig. 32. Hadrian. Denarius. RESTITVTORI AFRICAE. RIC II, 377, no. 322. CNG eAuction 243. Lot: 347.

Other coins praise Hadrian as RESTITUTORI ARABIAE,289 RESTITUTORI ASIAE,290 RESTITUTORI BITHINIAE.291 The one reading RESTITUTORI NICOMEDIAE292 may be linked to the benevolence displayed by Hadrian during his visit in loco, when he took a major part in funding the rebuilding of the city, which had been severely damaged by earthquakes.293 Another coin has the legend RESTITUTORI GALLIAE,294 which may be linked to the statement found in the HA, namely, that Hadrian “travelled to the province of Gaul, and came to the relief of all the communities with various acts of generosity.”295

289

 RIC II, 464, nos. 943, 944.  RIC II, 464, nos. 945, 946 291  RIC II, 464-465, nos. 947-949. 292  RIC II, 466, no. 961. 293  See Mitchell (1987), 351. See also Kreitzer (1996), 165-167. 294  RIC II, 465, nos. 950, 951. Kreitzer (1996), 171. 295  HA, Hadr., 10, 1. 290

140

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Fig. 33. Hadrian. AR Denarius. RESTITVTORI GALLIAE. RIC II, 465, no. 950. CNG Feature Auction 114. Lot: 864.

Another coin reads RESTITUTORI HISPANIAE, with an olive branch resting on the left shoulder of the personification of Hispania, while a rabbit appears crouching at her feet between her and the Emperor.296 It probably commemorates Hadrian’s visit in Spain in 122-123, where, at Tarragona, we learn from the HA that he “restored at his own expense the temple of Augustus.”297

Fig. 34. Hadrian. AR Denarius. RESTITVTORI HISPANIAE. RIC II, 465, no. 952. CNG eAuction 243. Lot: 348.

296 297

 RIC II, 465, nos. 952-955 and 378, no. 327. See Kreitzer (1996), 172-173.  HA, Hadr., 12, 3.

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

141

Then we have a reverse with the legend RESTITUTORI MACEDONIAE, where the female personification of Macedonia appears in a short chiton and boots and is characterized by her wearing a kausia, the national headdress; she holds a whip in her hand which may point to the essentially pastoral or agricultural nature of the province.298 Other coins, with different images, are also found, which praise Hadrian as ‘Restitutor’ of the provinces of Achaia, Arabia, Asia, Bithynia, Libya, Phrygia, and Sicilia.299 When considered within this context, it appears that our coin from Naples, too, with the legend IUDAEA and the image of the Restitutor type, had a similar meaning, meant to emphasize the assistance and the support provided by Hadrian to the province of Judaea, probably during his visit to the country in 130, support which is well attested to by the epigraphical evidence.300 A date before, and not after, the Bar Kokhba War, is confirmed also by the fact that all the thirteen provinces represented on Hadrian’s coins of the Restitutor-type were not involved in any armed conflict during his reign, while those which did rebel at the beginning of his rule, such as Mauretania, Dacia and Britain, are notably absent. While the message conveyed both by the Judean Adventus coins and by this sestertius of the Restitutor type is clearly one of peace and benevolence, the detail of Judaea sacrificing on an altar suggests that the message was directed towards the non-Jewish population of the country. Whether it may be considered a deliberate provocation is not clear since we have no means to ascertain whether Hadrian, or the person responsible for the choice of the design of these coins, was, or was not, aware of the ideological singularity of the people who lived in the country.301 Hadrian himself is portrayed as having been particularly literate and learned; according to Dio “there was nothing pertaining to peace or war, to imperial or private life, of which he was 298  RIC II, 378, no. 329 (type a); 466, nos. 959-960 (type b). See Kreitzer (1996), 177. 299  Achaia: RIC II, 463, no. 938. Arabia: RIC II, 464, nos. 943, 944. Asia: RIC II, 464, nos. 945, 946. Bithynia: RIC II, 464-465, nos. 947-949. Libya: RIC II, 466, no. 958. Phrygia: RIC II, 467, nos. 962-964. Sicilia: RIC II, 467, nos. 965966. See Birley (1997), 231 and 361, note 47 and Witulski (2012), 235. 300  See above, notes 120-125. 301  Ciecielag (2006), 101, too, observes that these coins do not reflect conscious anti-Jewish sentiments.

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

142

not cognizant,”302 and in the HA we find the view that “so fond he was of travel, that he wished to inform himself in person about all that he read concerning all parts of the world.”303 However, we do not know what he may, or may not, have known about Jewish traditions and sensibilities. Concerning the province of Judaea, in particular, one may wonder whether he may have had any idea of the difference which existed between the inner heart of the country, predominantly inhabited by Jews, exclusive of the ‘land of the Samaritans,’304 and the towns and trade-centers on the Mediterranean coast and across the Jordan, in which there was a Jewish minority while it was the gentile majority that set the socio-cultural tone, giving these centers a Hellenistic-pagan character.305 Whether on purpose or by accident, these coins are unanimously regarded as displaying the non-Jewish population of the country. Since the thirties of the last century, the children who appear on these coins are taken to represent the pagan population and in particular the new generation growing up in the local Roman colonies.306 They are identified with those of Caesarea by Holum,307 and with those of Aelia Capitolina by Toynbee, who observes that, while children are a common symbol of Roman colonies in art, in this particular case, they go out with palm-branches to welcome the Imperial guest “on his entry into the ‘new Jerusalem’ to be, namely, Aelia Capitolina.”308 Toynbee sees a clear relation between these coins and the founding of Aelia Capitolina: just as in the native dress and arms of Britannia, Cappadocia and Dacia we see a reference to the part played by provincial troops in Imperial defense, so we find Judaea’s contribution in exactly that which the Iudaea type represents, namely, Judaea’s reception, as the Emperor’s gift and a result of his personal visit, of the Roman colony of Aelia 302

 69, 3, 2.  HA, Hadr., 17, 8. 304  On the Jewish part of the country, which included Judaea proper, the Galilee and the Peraea, see Cotton (1999), 82-89. 305  Alon (1980), 133. 306  Strack (1933), 162. Dating this coin to the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba War, Strack considers it as representing the province renascens after the war, and the children as a symbol of the renewal of life. 307  Holum (1992), 55. 308  Toynbee (1934), 120. See also Kindler (1975), 61-62 and Birley (1997), 232. 303

THE CONTEXT OF THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATIONS

143

Capitolina and the creation thereby of a new center of urban life and of all the amenities of Graeco-Roman civilization which the founding of a colony implied.309

The iconography of these coins, therefore, may well be taken to mean that the province of Judaea was regarded as a Roman province like all the others, and not as the homeland of the Jewish people.310 The question arises, what may have been the role of the Jews in the visit paid by Hadrian to Judaea. Of course, the emperor could not sacrifice in their temple, since there was no temple left in which to sacrifice. He would also not preside over contests in the amphitheatre or the circus. Even if it had been in character for Hadrian to have engaged in debate with leading local figures,311 it is difficult to assess the historical basis of the accounts found in the late rabbinic sources reporting on Hadrian’s conversations with the Jews,312 which may reflect the opinion held several centuries later by their authors and the message of peace they wished to transmit to future generations, rather than the factual reality in Hadrian’s time.313 All in all, one is permitted to wonder what may have been the role played by the Jews in Hadrian’s visit to Judaea.

309

 Toynbee (1934), 120. Tacitus, however, held a different view about the urbanization of the provinces: “They gradually deviated into a taste for those luxuries which stimulate to vice; porticos, and baths, and the elegancies of the table; and this, from their inexperience, they termed politeness, whilst, in reality, it constituted a part of their slavery” (Agr., 21). 310  See also Eck (2014), 21 and Weikert (2016), 286. 311  The HA, Hadr., 20, 1, states that Hadrian “most democratic in his conversations, even with the very humble, he denounced all who, in the belief that they were thereby maintaining the imperial dignity, begrudged him the pleasure of such friendliness. In the Museum at Alexandria, he propounded many questions to the teachers and answered himself what he had propounded.” See Birley (1997), 234. 312  See Schäfer (1981a), 236-244; Stemberger (1983), 78-81 and Berger (2002), 109-113 (non vidi). 313  For a different view, see Herr (1971), 123-150.

5

POSSIBLE JEWISH REACTIONS: WORKING HYPOTHESES Sources are silent regarding the reactions of Judean Jews to the developments taking place during the time of Hadrian, and one may presume that different groups among them may have held different opinions, as had happened in previous times. In the case of the new Greco-Roman architectural culture developing in Judaea in the first century, for example, Chancey wonders how the different sectors of Galilean society may have reacted, and considers meaningful the fact, that much of that culture was imposed from the top down: As for the masses, how did they respond? Did they view these buildings as ‘progress’ or merely as the visible expression of who had power and wealth and, by implication, who did not? … Many people probably associated them with the Roman domination.1

Schäfer is probably correct when he observes that it is very likely that Hadrian’s policy in Judaea was judged differently by the various Jewish groups, and that the population loyal to the Jewish Law may have viewed the developments in a very different manner than did the urban population in the larger cities in Galilee and on the coastal plain, where Hellenism was predominant.2 Not only different reactions may have been displayed by different groups at the time, but today, too, different views are offered by scholars. Some imagine an increasing adoption of Hellenization, as propagated by Hadrian, by assimilated Jewish circles,3 and this 1

 Chancey (2005), 97.  See Schäfer (1990), 297. 3  Schäfer observes that “the erection of the Hadrianeia in Caesarea and Tiberias and the striking of pagan coins were not carried out against the will of the Jewish population. … The Jews residing in Tiberias and Sepphoris apparently accepted Hadrian’s measures in silence, and it is possible that the influential among them, some of whom were leading members of the municipal institutions, were even pleased with them.” See Schäfer (1990), 287, 296 and Bieberstein (2007), 143. 2

146

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

assumption, in turn, is taken as an indication that the founding of Aelia Capitolina, too, may have been welcomed in these Jewish circles. Relying on a passage of the Tosefta which mentions a Jew who had undergone epispasm before Hadrian’s time,4 Schäfer observes: If we start from the assumption that, in Jerusalem, there was a fairly large group of assimilated Jews, who were friendly to Rome, and who had gone so far as to perform the epispasmos, then it is only logical to assume that this particular political group in Jerusalem supported Hadrian’s policy of ‘Hellenization.’”5 … it is likely that there was a group among the Jews (and probably an influential group) who actively supported Hadrian’s policy. The leaders of the revolt were not only the opponents of Rome, but also opponents of the assimilated group friendly to Rome in their own country.6 … since we have no record of resistance by the native Jewish population to the pagan temples founded by Hadrian in Tiberias and even in Sepphoris, why should Hadrian not also revive Jerusalem as a Hellenistic-Roman city, especially if a not insignificant part of the Jewish population fell in with these plans and wishes?7

This interpretation is endorsed by Bazzana, who emphasizes that Hadrian’s project could have been designed to meet some approval: Only too narrow a concept of the opposition between Judaism and Hellenism in the Land of Israel at this time allows us to maintain the

4

 “‘One who has had the foreskin drawn forward must be circumcised.’ It is objected by R. Judah b. Ilai that this would be dangerous; but ‘they said to him, many who had had the foreskin drawn forward were circumcised in the days of Ben Koziba, and they had children and did not die’” (Tosefta, Shabb., XV (XVI), 9). See also Schäfer (1990), 302, note 84 on other parallels sources. Horbury (2014), 377, observes that zeal for circumcision in Hadrian’s days, which also emerges from the Apocalypse of Baruch, may have cohered readily with emphasis on the recovery of the land and national redemption. 5  Schäfer (1981), 92; Schäfer (1990), 296-297. 6  Schäfer (1981), 94; see also Bieberstein (2007), 143. 7  Schäfer (1990), 295-296 and idem (1999), 130. In his work appeared in 2003 (2003a, 147), Schäfer observes: “this incidental remark can only be interpreted as implying that, before the Bar Kokhba uprising, there were many Jews who had had an operation to restore their foreskin, and these – as was the case in the second century BCE under Antiochus IV – must have been Hellenized or Romanized ‘enlightened’ Jews who rejected circumcision as a barbaric practice and wanted to adapt themselves to their ‘heathen’ environment.”

POSSIBLE JEWISH REACTIONS: WORKING HYPOTHESES

147

strict image of a complete and total refusal, on Israel’s side, of the empire and its institutions.8

Sartre, too, points out that the time had passed not only for a political refusal towards Rome but also for the fight against a culture that wasn’t perceived anymore as an enemy culture since it had already impregnated all the different segments of society.9

These views rely on the positive image of Hadrian found in the fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles and in the rabbinic literature. In fact, in the Sibylline Oracles Hadrian is portrayed in enthusiastic terms; And after him another shall reign, a silver-helmed man: he shall have the name of a sea. He shall be a most excellent man and shall understand everything. And in thy time, most noble, dark-haired prince, and in the time of thy scions, all these days shall come… 10

Looking for the possible background of this passage, it has been suggested, that, since Hadrian had dismissed Lusius Quietus and soon afterwards had him killed,11 this alone may have been enough to give the Jews an initially (and misleadingly) favorable view of the new emperor.12 It is difficult, however, to assess the historical value of this passage and of the whole fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles, which contains prophecies from pagan, Jewish and Christian sources, was subjected to extensive redaction and interpolation, and, moreover, cannot be dated with any certainty.13 In any case, since in all probability it was written in Egypt,14 the question is whether it may be taken to reflect the attitude of Judaean Jews, or rather that of the 8

 Bazzana (2010), 92.  Sartre (2005a), 44. 10  5, 45-50. 11  See above, 89, note 25; 103, note 99. 12  See Gregorovius (1883), 487 and Birley (1997), 230, 233; Tameanko (1999), 19 observes that when Quietus was executed by Hadrian, the Jews thought they had found a new friend and savior. In certain circles he was eve hailed as another Cyrus the Great, the Persian king which had restored ancient Israel. See also Birley (2006), 67 and Hadas-Lebel (2006), 169. 13  Felder (2002), 368 mentions various scholarly views regarding the date and the authorship of this book: Jewish authorship, around 130; two Jewish authors, one writing in 71, the other around 120, and a Christian editor, writing around 150. 14  See Collins (1974), 73-95; Collins (1987), 436; Goodman (1996), 645. 9

148

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Egyptian Jews, or of some of them. As Weikert points out, the situation in Egypt was very different from that obtaining in Judaea.15 As to the image of Hadrian emerging from the rabbinic literature, it is true that a somewhat positive picture is presented in some late rabbinic sources,16 but other passages are found in the same literature, which depict Hadrian as a persecutor and compare him with Antiochus Epiphanes.17 Of course, it is impossible to extrapolate from these sources how sizeable may have been the sectors of the Jewish population who agreed with and accepted the new developments taking place in Hadrian’s time, vis-à-vis those which strongly opposed them. Grabbe contends that the number of the Jews who performed the epispasm before Hadrian’s reign is not likely to have been great,18 and that, while it is reasonable that some of them may have actively or passively fostered the Greco-Roman culture, it is impossible to ascertain whether they constituted a majority and, also, whether they willingly participated in the particular developments taking place in Hadrian’ time.19 In fact, the possibility has also been envisaged, that the discontent escalated with time, and that a tense situation prevailed in Judaea in the years which preceded the war, up to the point of necessitating further strengthening of the military forces stationed in loco.20 Proof has been seen in two papyrological documents. The first attests that 15

 Weikert (2016), 259.  Schäfer (1981), 236-244; Stemberger (1983), 78-84. On the problems raised by the traditions which mention Hadrian’s promise to rebuild the Jewish Temple, see Schäfer (1981), 78-102; idem (1990), 281-303; Paget (1994), 9-30; Weikert (2016), 251-259. Gregorovius (1883), 493, wonders whether Hadrian deceived the Jews or the Jews deceived themselves. Hadas-Lebel (2006), 170, surmises that perhaps the construction project announced by Hadrian during his visit to Judaea was interpreted by the Jews as an intention to rebuild the Temple. “Those who calculated times,” she suggests, “perhaps considered that an almost equal period had passed between the destruction of the First Temple and the edict of Cyrus, as between the destruction of the Second Temple and the decision of Hadrian.” See also Horbury (2014), 298-307. 17  Stemberger (1983), 85-86. On Jewish negative views of Roman power in previous times, see Gruen (2021), 379-390. 18  Grabbe (1992), 573. 19  Grabbe (1992), 573. 20  Gray (1923), 254; Smallwood (1981), 437. 16

POSSIBLE JEWISH REACTIONS: WORKING HYPOTHESES

149

a shipment of clothing ‘for the military needs of those in service in Judaea’ was sent to Judaea from Egypt in 128,21 and the other, dated 150 CE, deals with twenty-two veterans, all Alexandrians in service in Judaea, who request certification of their legionary service from the governor of Judaea Velius Fidus. They specify that they had been transferred from duty as marines in the fleet of Misenum into the Legio X Fretensis, and had served for over twenty years (annos super XX) as good soldiers.22 Depending on the interpretation given to this figure, whether it is taken to refer to their cumulative service in the fleet and in the legion or only to their service in the legion, different scenarios have been envisaged. Accordingly, the transfer of the soldiers has been linked either to a possible unrest taking place in Judaea in the years 128/129, at the time of the supply of clothing “for the needs of those in service in Judaea” mentioned above,23 or to the necessities of the Bar Kokhba War.24 The possibility that this transfer was prompted not by military reasons but rather by additional security needs, such as those necessary for policing and for construction work on roads and aqueducts, perhaps to be associated with preparations for Hadrian’s visit in the province, and also, perhaps, with the planning for the founding of Aelia Capitolina, as has been suggested,25 is questionable. The elevation of marines (classiarii) into a legio was unusual,26 and, moreover, it implied a change of civic status, since  P. Rylands 189, a receipt from Soknopaiou Nesos, dated 9 December 128.  Cum militaverimus, domine, in classe praetoria Misenensi{s} et ex indulgentia divi Hadriani in leg. Fr. translatis [a(nnos)] super XX omnia nobis uti bonis militibus constiterint, nunc quoque felicissimis temporibus sacramento absoluti sumus et in patriam Alexandriam ad Aegyptum ituri petimus…: PSI IX 102 = Smallwood (1966), no. 330, from Caesarea, dated 22 January 150. 23  Applebaum (1976), 19; Smallwood (1981), 437; Alon (1984), 579-581. Mazor (2007), 4, too, speaks of “newly awakening unrest in the province” at the beginning of Hadrian’s reign. See also Horbury (2014), 294. Against this possibility, see Mor (2016), 60-61. Reddé (2000), 184 suggests that these sailors were transferred to the legion in 125. 24  See Degrassi (1929), 252; Mann (1983), 66; Eck (1999), 79; idem (2007a), 125-126; idem (2014c), 231-233; Bloch (2015), 165. A full bibliographical list of all the works endorsing this interpretation is found in Mor (2016), 330, note 208. 25  Gray (1923), 254-255; Smallwood (1981), 437; Horbury (2014), 295, 308. 26  Horbury (2014), 308. Degrassi (1929), 253 suggests that this kind of elevation is to be considered either a special reward or due to the need of filling up sudden vacancies. 21 22

150

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

the marines had to become Roman citizens, which needed a special decree of the emperor. All this, Eck concludes, appears to indicate a situation of emergency.27 A situation of emergency might also be reflected by the presence, in 124, of the Cohors I Thracum Miliaria at Ein Geddi on the Dead Sea, which some years later was to be one of the centers of the Bar Kokhba War and perhaps, it has been suggested, also by the burial of several hoards, which, however, are usually referred to the period of the Bar Kokhba War.28 In conclusion, while there is no positive ground to attest to a state of actual unrest, the possibility cannot be excluded that a general atmosphere of tension may have prevailed in Judaea in the years preceding the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War.29 Regarding the founding of Aelia Capitolina, in particular, it is doubtful that the colony “was probably welcomed by Hellenistic and pro-Roman elements within the Jewish population”30 since the Jews were prevented from entering it, as we learn from the decree mentioned by Eusebius and from the archaeological excavations at Shu’afat, 31 and one may well surmise that Hadrian’s decree did not distinguish between Hellenized pro-Roman Jews and Jews loyal to the Jewish tradition. This, however, may have not been the only reason for the discontent of Judean Jews. Built on the mountain Moriah where the Jewish tradition places the binding of Isaac, Jerusalem had been the seat of Jewish sovereignty, 27

 Eck (2007a), 126.  On the military unit, see Speidel (1979), 170-171 and also Mor (2016), 40, note 116. On the hoards, see Farhi and Melamed (2014), 129, note 23. 29  See Stern (1980), 402. The discontent displayed by some sectors of Jewish society may have found an echo also in the rabbinic tradition. See Herr (1972), 92 and Witulski (2012), 257, note 413. Smallwood (1976), 434 observes that “there is evidence suggesting that the Bar Kokhba revolt was the culmination of a period of mounting unrest, and it is possible that Hadrian’s foundation of Aelia was an attempt to combat resurgent Jewish nationalism by the deliberate secularization of the sacred capital.” 30  Bowersock (1980), 134; Schäfer (1990), 296-298; Tameanko (1999), 21. In any case, not all the books of Sibylline Oracles held similar views. According to Ziosi (2018), 136, verses 50-60 of the eighth book refer to Hadrian and characterize him in much more negative terms. 31  See above, 77-80. 28

POSSIBLE JEWISH REACTIONS: WORKING HYPOTHESES

151

the household site of the rulers, the location of its legislative councils and courts and the center of Jewish worship and national identity. The First and then the Second Temple had been destroyed, but their site continued to remain holy in the people’s perception, and mourning and fast were annually held on Tisha b‘Av, on the Tenth of Tevet, on the Seventh of Tammuz and on the Third of Tishrei, in mournful memory of events leading to or following the destruction of the Temple. Irrespective of the place where they lived, Jews – of course, the Jews who cared – considered Jerusalem as their ‘mothercity,’ as Philo has King Agrippa proclaim.32 They stood in prayer in the direction of the Temple even when it no longer existed, and kept imploring for the rebuilding of Jerusalem not only in their prayers but also when they ate, in their blessing over food, before and after their meals. From the point of view of these Jews, the creation in Jerusalem of a pagan settlement with temples dedicated to the Greek and Roman gods may well have been perceived as the denial of its very holiness. Judaism had historically stood out from other faiths in the ancient world because of its monotheism, for which idolatry, avodah zarah was an ultimate betrayal of the divine, and Jews’ rejection of idolatry affected Jewish daily life not only in the spiritual and cultic domains, but also in terms of cuisine and social life. With the founding of Aelia Capitolina, Jerusalem was replaced by a center of foreign cults and of foreign culture, substantiated by the presence of temples and statues. In the Roman world, statues were a ubiquitous feature, particularly in the cities, where they were prominently displayed in the forum or agora and in the bathhouses, theatres, amphitheaters, hippodromes, stadiums and municipal buildings, 32

 “While she [Jerusalem] is my native city, she is also the mother city not of one country, Judaea, but of most of the others in virtue of the colonies sent out at divers times to the neighboring lands Egypt, Phoenicia, the part of Syria called the Hollow and the rest as well and the lands lying far apart, Pamphylia, Cilicia, most of Asia up to Bithynia and the corners of Pontus, similarly also into Europe, Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia, Aetolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth and most of the best parts of Peloponnese… So that if my own home-city is granted a share of your goodwill the benefit extends not to one city but to myriads of the others situated in every region of the inhabited world whether in Europe or in Asia or in Libya, whether in the mainlands or on the islands, whether it be seaboard or inland” (Leg., 281283).

152

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

being a primary means of propagating imperial ideology.33 The presence of statues, however, was objectionable in the Jewish tradition. Even in far away Rome, Tacitus was aware that the Jews conceive of one god only, and that with the mind only: they regard as impious those who make from perishable materials representations of gods in man’s image; that supreme and eternal being is to them incapable of representation and without end. Therefore, they set up no statues in their cities, still less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honor given to the Caesars.34

All in all, one may wonder as to what may have been more traumatic: the fact that they were excluded from Jerusalem or the fact that a pagan center was built on the ruins of the holy city where once the Temple had stood. This may be the reason why, since the end of the nineteenth century, scholars are to be found who regard the founding of Aelia Capitolina “an outrage,” as we find in the work of Schürer35 – and still in the edition of Vermes and Millar in the seventies36 – and in that of Gregorovius, who points out that the Jews “had been hurt in their holiest feelings.”37 In the twentieth century, the religious aspect is emphasized. Grant regards the founding of Aelia Capitolina as “warfare waged with the religion of the Jews;”38 Beaujeu claims that Hadrian wanted to install “a new religious system in Jerusalem to eradicate the former cult”39 and Barnard goes so far as to define the founding of the colony and the erection of the temple to Jupiter Capitolinus as “an act of supreme 33

 See Chancey (2005), 204.  Tacitus, Hist., 5, 5. 4 = Stern [1980], no. 281. 35  Schürer in its English edition of 1961, 298. 36  Schürer (1973), 540. 37  Gregorovius (1883), 500. 38  Gray (1914), 121. See also Gray (1923), 253: “The papyri show that the war [= the Diaspora Uprisings] was going on when Trajan died and continued for at least some time after Hadrian’s accession. It required less intelligence than Hadrian possessed to perceive that the two great sources of Jewish sedition were Palestine and Egypt. His founding of Aelia Capitolina signified that he planned to destroy Jewish nationalistic uprisings at their source. The natural moment for the formation of this plan would have been in 117, when the Jews, in Egypt at least, were still in revolt.” 39  Beaujeu (1955), 259-262. 34

POSSIBLE JEWISH REACTIONS: WORKING HYPOTHESES

153

folly almost unsurpassed in the history of the Caesars, a calculated and deliberate assault against the Jewish way of life.”40 Thornton, too, stresses that most of the Jewish population was not prepared to become integrated within the Panhellenistic policy of the emperor and regarded this policy as unsuitable and standing in absolute contradiction to Judaic values.41 Smallwood stresses Hadrian’s desire to suppress the resurgent Jewish nationalism by substituting a secular city for Jerusalem, which was meant to counteract Jewish restlessness via a military foundation;42 Mildenberg defines Hadrian’s policy as “a deliberate political measure directed against the Judaean Jews,”43 and Applebaum calls it “arbitrary and provocative.”44 Along the same lines, Boatwright observes: The Jews’ distinct religious practices had always made their integration into Greco-Roman urban life awkward. The fragile accommodation was destroyed by Hadrian’s Colonia Aelia Capitolina. In supplanting Jerusalem in Judaea, Hadrian brazenly suppressed local mores and expressly prohibited the native population from this symbolic spot. The extreme measures precluded any possibility of continued compliance on the part of the Jews, and they, and in turn the Romans, resorted to violence. … In stark contrast to Antinoopolis, Colonia Aelia Capitolina stifled the needs and desires of its region’s inhabitants. … Colonia Aelia Capitolina laid bare the military oppression and totalitarian measures Rome could employ to preserve supremacy and empire.45

According to Boatwright, the new colonies founded by Hadrian reveal both Hadrian’s promotion of a new understanding of the Roman empire, and the limitation of this vision:

40

 Barnard (1969), 289.  “While the emperor saw Hellenization as the core element in the process of unifying the Empire, he was confronted by a Jewish population that had for generations conducted fierce struggles against Hellenization and against whatever represented it in the Land of Israel”: Thornton (1975), 118-120. 42  Smallwood (1976), 434. But see Zahrnt (1991), 477-480. 43  Mildenberg (1984), 107. 44  Applebaum (1989), 157. 45  Boatwright (2000), 196-197, 202. 41

154

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

To the detriment of the Empire, Hadrian’s encouragement of cultural diversity and his attention to local differences did not extend to the Jews and other non-participants in the Greco-Roman urban ideal.46

Speller observes that “whether deliberately or in ignorance of local beliefs, to erect what was to be essentially a military colony on the site of the Jews’ devastated citadel, their most holy place, was an act of immense provocation,”47 and even while emphasizing Hadrian’s good intentions in founding this new colony, Schäfer recognize that the statue of Hadrian erected in the centre of Aelia “was tantamount in itself to a desecration of Jewish Jerusalem.”48 Tsafrir, too, who claims that Hadrian had no intention to offend Jewish traditions, admits that the Jews realized that the restoration of Jerusalem as a new Hellenized-Roman polis would bring an end to their aspirations to rebuild Jerusalem as a Jewish capital with a new Temple as its crown.49 Horbury points out that Aelia Capitolina would hardly have formed even a bad joke. It might rather have rubbed in an existing offence, for the new colony would adjoin the legionary quarters within the bounds of the old holy city, a provocation to many Jews and to some in the now fairly significant Judaean Christian community,50

and Mor, too, states that most of the Jewish population was not prepared to become integrated within the Panhellenistic policy of the emperor, and regarded this policy as unsuitable and standing in absolute contradiction to Judaic values,51 while Zissu and Eshel state that it was “a great insult to Jewish feelings.”52 As for the temple of Jupiter, for example, Misgav points out that for Hadrian it was just another construction project, “but for the small and stubborn nation whose homeland he was desecrating, it was an abomination.”53 A far-reaching possibility has also been envisaged by Mor, namely, 46  Boatwright (2000), 173. See also note 7 on the same page about the works of De Lange, Goodman and Whittaker. 47  Speller (2003), 130. 48  Schäfer (2003), 159. 49  Tsafrir (2009), 76. 50  Horbury (2014), 282, 311. 51  Mor (2016), 119. 52  Zissu and Eshel (2016), 388. 53  Misgav (2017), 29.

POSSIBLE JEWISH REACTIONS: WORKING HYPOTHESES

155

that, since in the 130s there were strong signs of Hadrian’s tendency towards absolute rule, it is reasonable to suppose that the emperor wished to cancel the special status of Judaism as a permitted religion, yet naturally without causing harm to the position of the province as part of the imperial system. At this time, the prestige of Hadrian was firmly established throughout the Empire, so that he saw no hindrance to turning Judaea into an integral part of the system of Roman provinces and not allowing it to remain any longer as a separate and isolated unit.54

Whether Hadrian may really have conceived the possibility of forbidding the Jews to follow their own laws is impossible to say, but the fact remains, that he did not do it, even after the repression of the Bar Kokhba War. This leads us to the next question to be addressed, namely, whether and under which terms Aelia Capitolina may be regarded as a standard Roman colony.

54  Mor (2016), 120. Already in 1892, Germer Durand (1892), 377, points out: “En remplaçant la capitale du Judaïsme par une colonie romaine, Hadrien se proposait non seulement d’ôter aux Juifs tout espoir de restauration, mais aussi de détruire, dans sa racine même, la doctrine monothéiste.”

6

WAS AELIA CAPITOLINA A STANDARD ROMAN COLONY? It has been argued that Aelia Capitolina was an unusual creation that did not fit the general characteristics of Roman colonies of the period because of its location, in close proximity to the army base of the legio X Fretensis, and because by the second century CE the colonies involving the transfer of population are considered to have been a thing of the past, being replaced by honorary colonies that did not hinder settlement.1 This, however, was not the case according to Dabrowa, who notes that the presence of veterans in colonies founded in the second and third centuries is indicated by the reverse type of the colonial coins showing the Capitoline wolf or the foundation scene, where the image of the vexillum and the legion’s name was never accidental and was not devoid of its initial meaning. The depiction of the vexillum on the Roman coins was always based on principles strictly defined which reserved the right of its use only to the military colonies, according to a custom consolidated since the first century BCE.2 Relying on the iconography of the coins, therefore, Dabrowa concludes that the appearance of honorary colonies did not imply the end of the founding of colonies of veterans by deductio, which were still founded at least until the middle of the third century CE.3 If this is the case, then Aelia Capitolina and Colonia Aelia Mursa should not be regarded as the last colonies established by settlement in the history of Rome. 1

 Isaac [1980-81] (1998c), 89-90, 103, 107; Isaac (1992), 323-324; Boatwright (2000), 172; Keppie (2000), 311; Belayche (2001), 121; Seligman (2017), 113. See also the works of Forni, Sherwin-White, Watkins, Mann, Millar, Brennan, Zahrnt, Pollard, Katsari and Mitchell cited by Dabrowa (2020c), 149, note 1. 2  See Dabrowa (2000), 324; idem (2001), 79 and idem (2004), 403-404. 3  Dabrowa [2003] (2020), 98-104; idem [2004] (2020a), 113; idem (2020c), 150-155 and idem (2020d), 164-170 on the continuation of colonial settlements after Hadrian’s time.

158

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

As for the proximity of the colony to a military camp, it is not without parallel: Roman garrisons were often surrounded by civil agglomerations, of which numerous archaeological traces are found at the edge of military camps.4 Several pertinent examples are provided by Keppie. In Britain, Claudius founded a colony at Colchester (Camulodunum) where in the immediate aftermath of the conquest a legionary base had been established; under Nerva another colony was founded in Britain, at Gloucester (Glevum) where a legion had been based under Nero, overlying the military base. On the Lower Rhine frontier, the departure of legion XXII Primigenia to the Danube in 92-93 left vacant the recently re-sited fortress at Vetera, one of the earliest of Roman outposts on the river, continually in use by the army since about 13 BCE. In line with earlier practice, Trajan now made the well-established adjacent civil settlement into a colony, as Colonia Ulpia Traiana, modern Xanten, and a few years later a legion was posted back to Vetera; colony and legionary base (now occupied by VI Victrix) existed in close proximity down into the Late Empire.5 A colony established close to a legionary camp is found also at Sarmizegetusa, in Dacia Porolissensis, which was founded beside the camp of the legio V Macedonica, and at Bostra, too, it seems to have been normal enough for legions to be based in or on the edge of cities.6 Colonia Aelia Mursa, too, was settled close to the site of a legionary fortress,7 and in Pannonia and in Upper Moesia too, several canabae, which became municipia under Hadrian, were settled close to legionary bases.8 The pattern of a Roman colony founded side by side with a legionary camp is also possibly found in Pisidia,9 and in later times, another example is found in Mesopotamia, at Rhesaena, where, under Septimius Severus, a colony and the newlyformed legio III Parthica were installed at one and the same place.10 4

 Bérard (1992), 88.  Keppie (2000), 304-305. 6  Birley (1997), 233. At Bostra, too, in Arabia, the site of the legionary fortress has now been identified with confidence in the north of the town. See Bowersock (1983), 105 and Kennedy and Riley (1990), 125 and figs. 71-72. 7  According to Mann (1983), 65, this legion may be the legio II Adjutrix, which was stationed in this area before moving on to Aquincum. 8  Mócsy (1974), 139-142. Zahrnt (1991), 482, too, observes that a Roman city was founded adjacent to almost all military camps. 9  Sartre (2001), 120. 10  See Isaac (1992), 360, notes 169-170. 5

WAS AELIA CAPITOLINA A STANDARD ROMAN COLONY?

159

In these respects, Capitolina did fit the general characteristics of Roman colonies of the period. The political background of Aelia Capitolina, too, is rather similar to that of the other colony founded by Hadrian, Colonia Aelia Mursa (to-day Osijek, in Croatia). In 107/108, the ownership of the region of Oltenia had prompted a war between Rome and the Roxolani along with their allies, the Iazyges, an ancient Sarmatian tribe, a war which ended in their defeat by Hadrian, then governor of Pannonia Inferior. Again, in 117, the Iazyges and the Roxolani invaded Lower Pannonia and Lower Moesia. They were fought back: the Roxolani surrendered first, and then the Iazyges, too, concluded a peace with Rome, which however did not last long. In 123, again, the Iazyges and other Sarmatians invaded Roman Dacia and were defeated by Marcius Turbo.11 It was at some point during this period, it appears, that Hadrian founded a new colony in the Lower province, at Mursa, which was a strategically important center, close to a natural intersection of routes, in an area where practically all the important battles in Pannonia had taken place.12 This creation was probably meant to provide security in the case of a new attack by the Iazyges.13 As has been noted regarding the settlement imposed by L. Mummius after the revolt of the Achaean League had been crushed, it may have been “in part a reprisal, in part an effort to ensure that there should be no further uprisings.”14 The fact that the founding of Aelia Capitolina closely followed the Jewish Diaspora Uprisings, therefore, is not to be seen as an exception. As Zahrnt points out, we may assume that Aelia Capitolina played a role similar to that of Mursa.15 One might also wonder whether the fact that Aelia Capitolina had a role in prompting the war which followed may be considered anomalous, but this, too, was not a singular case. Several instances are attested, of Roman colonies which are known to have aroused the resentment of the local population, so that one may reasonably suspect that Aulus Gellius’ observation that to be a Roman colony was 11

 See Birley (1997), 80-81, 84-92.  See Mócsy (1974), 143. 13  On the similarity of the role played by Mursa and Aelia Capitolina, see Zahrnt (1991), 471, 476 and Birley (1997), 90. 14  Lintott (1995), 32. 15  Zahrnt (1991), 476. 12

160

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

a much-coveted privilege16 may have not been widely shared. Even Tacitus reports the view that the settlement of a Roman colony was rather “a punishment, a violence to the local inhabitants, a most infamous sign of Roman domination.”17 A few examples may suffice. Fierce opposition was displayed by the local inhabitants against Colonia Camulodunum (Colchester) in Britain, settled on conquered lands at Camulodunum by a strong detachment of veterans, who were to serve as “a bulwark against revolt and to habituate the friendly natives to their legal obligations.”18 Unfortunately it failed in its purpose. A striking description is portrayed by Tacitus of the hatred engendered by the arrogance and rapacity of the colonists, who were given land taken from the indigenous population19 and were supported by the military, themselves prospective citizens of the colony after their discharge.20 Then, Tacitus tells us, “the whole nation took up arms, under the command of Boudicca… and after pursuing the soldiers scattered among the Roman forts and capturing the garrisons, they invaded the colony itself, as the local center of servitude.”21 Another colony which aroused strong hostility among the local inhabitants was Colonia Agrippinensium (Cologne) in the Rheineland in Germania Inferior,22 and at Philippi in Eastern Macedonia, too, land was confiscated, the institution of the Hellenistic city was abrogated, and local notables from the Hellenistic city 16  According to Aulus Gellius, a speech by Hadrian asserted that the title of colony is coveted since colonies have their prestige “because of the amplitude and majesty of the Roman people, whereof they seem to be little images and likenesses” (Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 16, 13, 9). See Eck (2007a), 61, no. 14. 17  Tac., Ann., 1, 59, 8. 18  Tac., Ann., 12, 32. 19  See Wallace (2016), 129-130. 20  “Bitterest animosity was felt against the veterans, who, fresh from the settlement in the colony of Camulodunum, were acting as though they had received a free gift of the entire country, driving the natives from their homes, ejecting them from their lands… More than this, the temple raised to the deified Claudius continually met the view, like the citadel of an eternal tyranny; while the priests, chosen for its service, were bound under the pretext of religion to pour out their fortunes like water. Not did there seem any great difficulty in the demolition of a colony unprotected by our commanders whose thoughts had run more on the agreeable than on the useful” (Ann., 14, 31). 21  Agr., 16, 1. 22  Tac., Hist., 4, 63. See Isaac [1983-4] (1998e), 214.

WAS AELIA CAPITOLINA A STANDARD ROMAN COLONY?

161

were not co-opted into the new Roman colony, which may have been retaliatory because they may not have been sympathetic to the Romans by providing them with aid.23 As for the fact that the Jews were forbidden to enter Aelia Capitolina and its surroundings mentioned in the decree quoted by Eusebius, “Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree (nomou dogmati) and ordinances (diataxesin) the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district around Jerusalem, so that even from a distance could it see its ancestral home,”24

it appears that this, too, cannot be viewed as an extraordinary measure. Sartre mentions the case of Ptolemais, where, too, the creation of the Roman colony had unfavorable consequences for some of the inhabitants, who were obliged to leave the town: an inscription from Ptolemais mentions a village named Nea Kome which may have been a new creation to shelter the old inhabitants who had been dispossessed.25 Displacement of local inhabitants after the repression of wars and the destruction of urban settlement, and in Hadrian’s time in particular,26 must have been so common in Roman history that it is seldom mentioned by the literary sources. Why take notice of that which was inherent in warfare? In these respects, Aelia Capitolina was a typical Roman colony. A few features, however, must also be mentioned, which do happen to have been unusual. First of all, the name given to the colony, which disregarded the old name of the city, Jerusalem. According to the usual procedure, the name of a Roman colony incorporated also the old one. This was the case of Corinth, the name of which was preserved both in the colony found by Julius Caesar, Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis, and in that re-founded later by Vespasian, Colonia Iulia Flavia Augusta Corinthiensis.27 This was also the case of the former Dacian capital, where the Roman colony established by Trajan was named Colonia 23

 Brélaz (2018), 27-34, 95-116.  Eus., HE, 4, 6, 3. See above, 77-78. 25  Sartre (2005), 127. 26  On the Dacian inhabitants displaced in Dacia in Hadrian’s days, see MacKendrik (1975), 66. 27  Lintott (1992), 89 and 96. 24

162

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica including also the old name, Sarmizegetusa.28 What happens in the case of Aelia Capitolina, where the old name simply disappeared, is definitely atypical. For good reason the renunciation of the original name of Jerusalem has been considered a damnatio memoriae of its history.29 Another unusual decision made by Hadrian was the change of the name of the province from Judaea to Syria Palaestina,30 attested for the first time in a document dated to 136,31 which had exactly the same purpose as the other decisions taken by Hadrian – the choice of the name Aelia Capitolina, which disregarded the old name of the city, Jerusalem, and the fact that the Jews were prohibited from entering it – which were all meant to obliterate the Jewish identity.32 Geiger suggests that the decision to change the name of the province may have originally stemmed from the requests of the nonJewish inhabitants of the province, interested in dissociating themselves from the implications of the name, who may have sent a Greek embassy (or several embassies) to the emperor demanding such a change – an action well in line with what we know about the relations between provincial populations and the imperial court.33 Whatever the identity of those who took the initiative, the inimical Greeks of Palestine or Hadrian, who would have been all too glad to 28

 See Zahrnt (2002), 61 and Strobel (2010), 277-280. It should be noticed however that the colony was established at a distance of 40 km from the former Dacian capital. See Zahrnt (2002), 61 and Weikert (2016), 278. 29  Weikert (2016), 278. In any case, the name of Jerusalem did survive. It appears, along with the new name, in the work of Claudius Ptolemaeus (“Hierosolyma, that is now called Aelia Capitolina”: Geographica, 5, 15, 5 = Stern (1980), 167, no. 337a) and is still mentioned as late as the fifth century in a list of geographical places in a papyrus found in Egypt near Panopolis, which mentions the two names, one beside the other: Elia[ ] Eiero[sal]em (SB XXVI, 16607, l. 17). On the often-erroneous orthography of the document, see Perale (2016), 156, 161. 30  On the use of the name Palaestina in the works written before the time of Hadrian, see Feldman (1996), 553-567 and Labbé (2012), 476. 31  See above, 128-129 and 129, note 243. 32  Cotton (1999), 80. 33  Eck (2007), 51; Geiger (2016), 501. Bloch (2015), 265, note 98, too, argues that the choice of this specific name, Syria Palaestina, may have been a suggestion of the non-Jewish population of the province who must have resented the association with Judaea and have wished to give a new identity to the province. On the support of the local non-Jews for Hadrian and for the Roman cause, see Geiger (2016), 501.

WAS AELIA CAPITOLINA A STANDARD ROMAN COLONY?

163

accommodate their wishes, the decision to change the name of the province appears to have been a radical one.34 Romans did sometimes change the names of provinces. Eck cites the examples of Hispania Ulterior, which was named provincia Baetica; of Moesia, split in 86 into Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior, and of Dacia, which was divided into three separate entities, Dacia Superior, Dacia Porolissensis, and Dacia Inferior.35 It never occurred, however, that the new name of a province completely obliterated the old one. Gichon speaks of a highly symbolic and nearly unique damnatio memoriae nominis provinciae.36 As Eck points out, never before (or after), was the old name of a province changed, eliminating the original one as a corollary of a revolt: Not that revolts were not frequent in other provinces as well: the Germani in Germania, the Pannonii in Pannonia, and the Brittones in Britannia all revolted against Rome at one time or another. Yet none of these provinces lost its original name derived from the name of its people. But Judaea, derived from Iudaei, ceased to exist for the Roman government after the Bar Kokhba revolt. It was not because the Jewish population was much reduced as a result of losses suffered during the war that the name of the province was changed; the same was true, for example, of Pannonia, and yet the old name was kept. The change of name was part of the punishment inflicted on the Jews; they were punished with the loss of a name. This is the clear message of this exceptional measure, the one and only example of such a measure in the history of the Empire.37

In these respects, Aelia Capitolina, the Roman colony devoid of Jews, which replaced Jerusalem obliterating its historical name, in a country which thenceforth was to be called not Judaea but Syria Palaestina, may, indeed, be considered an unusual Roman creation.

34

 See Eck (2003), 168-169; idem (2006), 583; idem (2007), 51.  See Eck (1999), 88-89. 36  Gichon (1986), 28, note 32. 37  Eck (1999), 88-89. See also Eck (2003), 168. 35

7

MIGHT HADRIAN’S POLICY HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THAT IMPLEMENTED BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES?1 In the fifties of the last century, the suggestion was put forward, that Hadrian’s policy in Judaea might have been inspired by that implemented by Antiochus almost three hundred years earlier.2 Since then, this possibility has been restated several times by scholars.3 In Birley’s words, like Antiochus three hundred years before him, he (Hadrian) sought to hellenise the Jews. This is the only plausible explanation for his prohibition of circumcision and for his conversion of the ruined Jerusalem into a colonia under the name of Aelia Capitolina. …. The influence on Hadrian’s thinking of… Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria, had already been seen at Athens. It had, after all, been that king who had revived and gone a long way to completing the construction of the Olympieion. He too, like Hadrian, had promoted the cult of Zeus Olympios. There are various other aspects of the character and policies of the eccentric monarch which find an echo in Hadrian, of whom he seems to be almost a mirror image.4

In fact, a certain similarity may be found in the personalities of the two sovereigns and in some of their dealings.5 Antiochus earned a reputation as foremost among Hellenistic kings for his patronage of Greek cities and cults, and his assiduous efforts in this regard carried practical value, lending substantial prestige to the king in the international world of the second century BCE.6 Hadrian, too, greatly 1  An earlier version of this chapter has appeared in Ben Zeev Hofman (2020), 411-417. 2  Beaujeu (1955), 262. 3  Perowne (1960), 147; Grabbe (1992), 574-575; Hengel (1996), 381-384. 4  Birley (1997), 228. Similar claims appear also in the work of Belayche (2001), 117 and in that of Horbury (2014), 312. Hadrian’s wish to hellenise the Jews is also stressed by Malitz (2006), 145. 5  See Deines (2011), 222. 6  See Gruen (2016), 344.

166

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

benefitted the peoples of the Hellenistic world, as we have seen above.7 Both sovereigns fostered Hellenistic culture and cults, especially that of Zeus Olympios,8 and both promoted the worship of their own persons.9 The background of the developments which took place in Judaea, too, is rather similar: in both cases it was a political one. Antiochus had been compelled to abandon his Egyptian adventure at Popillius Laenas’ brusque command and ‘infamous swagger stick’.10 Not only did the withdrawal terminate Antiochus’ long-cherished dream of extending suzerainty over the Ptolemaic realm; it also came under humiliating circumstances that threatened to shatter the king’s reputation throughout the lands of the Near-East. The upheaval in Judaea offered a suitable target. The introduction of a garrison and the intimidation of the populace would announce Antiochus Epiphanes’ resumption of control to the diverse peoples and nations nominally under the Seleucid regime. Eradication of the creed and forcible conversion of the faithful would send a message throughout the ancestral kingdom of the Seleucids – the message that Antiochus had accomplished what no ruler before him had hoped to achieve: the abandonment of Jewish belief at Seleucid command. “The persecution,” Gruen points out, “served the ends of the king as a display of might, a sign that he had suffered no setback, indeed had emerged with greater strength.”11 This may have been one of the reasons why, in addition to the violent military action, Antiochus 7

 See above, 59-64.  This cult, it has been claimed, may have had a role in the unification of the Empire through Hellenism, but against this claim see Gruen (2016), 344. 9  In the case of Antiochus, see Tarn (1930), 51, 186, 303; Dancy (1954), 47 and Schürer (1973), 147-148. More recently, Marciak (2006), 63-65 and First (2013), 200-201. On Hadrian, see Thornton (1975), 433-434, 443, 455-456, 459; Boatwright (2000), 138-139 and 138, note 19; Birley (1997), 63-64, 183 and 340, note 17. Tameanko (1999), 19, considers Hadrian as a Hellenist who adopted the notion of a unified and peaceful Roman empire in which the provinces were components of an integrated commonwealth ruled by him as a new Greco-Roman civilization. 10  The wording is that of Gruen (2016), 355. 11  Gruen (2016), 355-357. See also Morgan (1993), 274. Antiochus’ determination to regain prestige can also be seen in his elaborate staging of the games at Daphnae in Antioch in 166 BCE to honor his victory in Egypt. As Doran (2011), 432, points out, the psychological effect of the ‘Day at Eleusis’ led to Antiochus 8

HADRIAN’S POLICY INSPIRED BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES?

167

decided to abrogate the Jewish laws – a measure which was adopted sometimes by the Greeks in their dealings with rebellious cities.12 In Hadrian’s days, too, a political background may be detected. When he became emperor, in the August of 117, the situation was rather precarious both in the internal and in the foreign domains, and, moreover, at the time the Jewish Diaspora Uprisings had not yet been quelled everywhere.13 It is therefore no wonder that after the final repression, Hadrian decided to strengthen Roman authority in Judaea by establishing a pagan Roman colony in Jerusalem in order to prevent possible future unrest. Similarities, however, end here. In Antiochus’ day, the building of the pagan center took place during the military operations carried on in reaction to internal Jewish upheavals which may have had an anti-Seleucid character.14 The walls of Jerusalem were razed to the ground, part of the city was walled off from the rest, and in this quarter, called the Akra, Syrian and foreign soldiers were settled.15 The Akra was fortified with high walls and towers, and pagan cults took place on altars probably built in a public marketplace.16 Besides, Antiochus forbade Jewish burnt offerings, sacrifices and libations in the Temple; he ordered the erection of altars, shrines, and images, the sacrifice of pigs and other impure animals, the banning of circumcision, the burning of the Torah, and a range of activities that would mean violation of Jewish practices and profanation of religious life.17 All this took place in the context of a war taking place between the Seleucids and the Judean Jews. wanting to show that he was still a force to be reckoned with. But see also Doran (2016), 185. 12  The father of Antiochus IV, Antiochus III, for example, had taken away the ancestral polity of Apollonia of Rhyndacos, and changes of laws and polity seem to have had an effect on the sacred precints and thus on the religious life of the city. Several further examples from the Greek world are provided by Doran (2011), 427428, which date back from the Peloponnesian War. 13  See above, 96. 14  On the nature and the interpretation of Jason’s deeds, see Schwartz (2001), 53-54 and Niesiolowski-Spanò (2016), 135. 15  Morkholm (1989), 281. 16  Niesiolowski-Spanò (2016), 137-138. 17  Gruen (2016), 342. On the historical assessment of Antiochus’ decrees, see Bar-Kochva (2016), 295-344 against the views held by Honigman (2014).

168

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

In Hadrian’s time, on the contrary, the founding of Aelia Capitolina took place in a period of peace – tense peace, perhaps, but still, peace. A ban on circumcision is mentioned by the HA, but its chronological setting, before or after the Bar Kokhba War, is still debated.18 The rabbinical tradition concerning religious persecution in Hadrian’s time, too, is variously interpreted. Schäfer denies it historical reliability, 19 while Isaac and Oppenheimer challenge the discussion of each rabbinical source separately. Examining the sources in combination and against the background of what is known of Roman practice in similar situations, they come to the conclusion that religious persecution did take place at the time of Hadrian.20 A middle position is endorsed by Stemberger, who suggests that even if most of the rabbinical texts do not allow direct and exclusive references to the time of Hadrian, a number of measures against the Jewish population may have been implemented by the Roman authorities, which were meant to punish the Jewish population or at least to keep them under strict control. Among them, the limitations of the right to assemble prescribed in Roman law, which the Romans often applied when they deemed it necessary, and made religious congregations problematic or even impossible.21 18  See the different interpretations of Geiger (1976), 139-147; Rabello (1984), 27-46 and idem (1995), 176-214; Isaac (2003), 37-54; Oppenheimer (2003), 55-69; Birley (2006), 671-681; Cotton (2008), 15, note 11 and Mor (2016), 129-135. 19  Schäfer (1981), 195-236; idem (2003b), 159-160 argues that “it is debatable whether the Palestinian Jews were subjected to systematic persecution. … upon closer examination of these sources, it would appear that the further away the sources are in time from the historical event of the Bar Kokhba revolt, the more extreme the persecution becomes.” 20  Such persecution would have included the prohibition to observe the Sabbath, to have public readings of Torah, to gather for Torah studying and for praying in synagogues, to recite the Shema, to wear tefillin and tzitzit, to affix a mezuzah to their doors, to observe the Sabbatical Year and the festivals (blowing the shofar, building a sukkah, kindling Hanukkah lights, having public readings of the Book of Esther and eating matzah), to appoint Sages and to maintain Jewish courts. See Lieberman (1946), 239-253, Herr (1972), 93-94 and Isaac-Oppenheimer [1985] (1998g), 250-251. As for the fact that these measures are not recorded by GrecoLatin sources, Hadas Lebel (2006), 183, ascribes this silence to the fact that the decrees were not issued by the emperor but by a local official, the governor Tineius Rufus. 21  Stemberger (2014), 267. According to Mor (2016), 476, these limitations were “passing phenomena.”

HADRIAN’S POLICY INSPIRED BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES?

169

In any case, these decrees seem to have been very different from those enacted by Antiochus, since they did not include demands to violate religious prohibitions, such as idolatry or the consumption of prohibited food, but only entailed measures against religious injunctions.22 They interfered with several aspects of religious life and meant to suppress those elements in the Jewish religion which were of national significance, but their purpose, it appears, was not the suppression of the Jewish cult as such.23 Hadrian’s disregard for Jewish perception of the holiness of Jerusalem did not have to be inspired by Antiochus’ policy because he had several examples of similar behaviors available in the Roman tradition itself. While the Romans recognized, de jure or de facto, the local customs and the laws of their subjected peoples,24 respect and consideration for their cults, which may have been considerable in times of peace, evaporated in times of war,25 when extremely aggressive policies are attested to have taken over.26 It actually appears that the destruction of the enemies’ sacred sites and cults was an important component of Roman strategy. This would naturally be the case when a sacred site or shrine functioned either as a center of rebellion or armed resistance, and it is in this context that some of the most famous and spectacular episodes of destruction occurred. One of the earliest examples took place in Sicily, where Marcellus waged a notoriously destructive campaign during the Second Punic War. In 211, he sacked and destroyed Morgantina, including its four shrines to Demeter and Kore, all of which were pillaged and demolished.27 Some forty years later, when waging a campaign in Greece, C. Lucretius Gallus was methodical in his destruction of sacred sites, and targeted those that had the potential to serve as rallying points when he fought as praetor in the campaign against Perseus in 171-170 BCE. In 171, he attacked Haliartus in Boeotia and the city was razed, including the temple of Athena on the citadel. The site and its environs certainly 22  Herr (1972), 98 and 99-101. But see Hadas-Lebel (2006), 189 about a passage which does imply imposition of idolatry. 23  Isaac and Oppenheimer (1998), 251. 24  Pucci Ben Zeev (1998), 461-465. 25  On the sack of Syracuse, Tarentum, and Locri, see Wells (2010), 231-233. 26  Rutledge (2007), 195. 27  Rutledge (2007), 188.

170

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

had some political significance, and such considerations surely contributed to Lucretius’ decision.28 Later, the cases of Carthage, Corinth and Thebes are most famous. The cities, along with their sacred structures, were razed and their temples looted.29 In the case of Corinth and Thebes, Rutledge observes, one cannot say for certain whether there was a deliberate intent to stamp out specifically the religious life of the city rather than to make an example of them in the wake of the Greek rebellion.30 The phenomenon of destruction of temples appears to have been so common as to be unworthy of comment in literary sources, except perhaps in the context of rhetorical invective.31 After rebellions of subject peoples, the destruction of a sacred site or shrine which had functioned as a center of rebellion or armed resistance often involved not the mere desecration, but the very annihilation of its sacred space. Both the destruction and the annihilation were premeditated prior to the assault on a given city.32 In the course of operations in Greece, Mesopotamon, a site known for its cult of the dead, which had been a local stronghold defense designed specifically against enemy attack, was leveled. After the Roman destruction no cult objects appear on the site.33 The Isthmian Sanctuary was abandoned during this period, and the archaeological evidence of the disruption of the cult of Poseidon is unambiguous: the altar was removed and a cart road was created across its foundation. 28

 Rutledge (2007), 189.  On the destruction of Carthage, Harris (1989), 160-161, points out: “six days were devoted to burning and destroying the city. … In spite of the destruction, the city was carefully plundered of portable objects… Shortly afterwards, the remains of the city were effectively destroyed, and finally the site was cursed. The latter action was perhaps not only an exaggerated precaution but also the result of an unconscious realization of the awfulness of what had been done. As for the destruction itself, it had precedents in other captured cities, and was soon followed by that of Corinth. What makes the Carthaginian case stand out… is the fact that this policy, having been decided in advance, was retained in the period after Carthage had made its original surrender. This was, and remained, unusual behavior even in the history of Roman warfare. … Rome’s annihilation of Carthage and most of its inhabitants was a brutal act. But it is important to realize that this brutality differed only in degree from what was normal in Roman warfare.” See also Rutledge (2007), 185, note 22 and Derow (1989), 323. 30  Rutledge (2007), 185. 31  Rutledge (2007), 183, 185. 32  Rutledge (2007), 183-184. 33  See Rutledge (2007), 182, notes 11-12. 29

HADRIAN’S POLICY INSPIRED BY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES?

171

Mummius may have carried away to Rome from the Isthmia a statue of Isthmian Poseidon, which could have been the cult statue.34 The literary and archaeological record attests to several brutal attacks against a number of sanctuaries in Italy itself. The first and particularly violent example we have is Fragellae, which revolted in 125 BCE: the archaeological record paints a grim picture, attesting to near-complete and thorough devastation of the city’s sacred buildings.35 Then, during the war against Mithridates, the Roman commander Fimbria destroyed not only the Roman ancestral home of Ilium, but also the temple of Athena, along with its sacred objects.36 Fimbria’s harsh treatment was doubtless intended to serve as an example to other cities and to induce in them second thoughts about their loyalties. Then, in the course of punitive expeditions in the wake of the Varrine disaster in 9 CE, more than one sacred site was destroyed when Germanicus conducted his campaigns against the Germans, including their most famous temple of Tamfana.37 Cases are also known, of sites whose archaeological records attest to violent destruction at Roman hands, but go unnoticed by the literary sources. Such silence, Rutledge points out, is attributable to how common such destruction was: why take notice of that which was inherent in warfare? 38 Then, when Britain revolted in 59, Suetonius Paulinus, the Roman commander, invaded Mona, an island containing groves sacred to the Celtic religion, where a number of Britons had taken refuge, along with their Druidic leadership that was responsible for the preservation of oral knowledge and for mediating between Celtic society and its gods. Paulinus burnt the groves and put an end to their rites.39 34

 Wiseman (1979), 496.  See Rutledge (2007), 187. 36  App., 12, 53: “Fimbria… made an indiscriminate slaughter and burned the whole town. … He spared neither the sacred objects nor the persons who had fled to the temple of Athena, but burned them with the temple itself.” Fimbria’s destruction of Troy is also mentioned by Augustine, who quotes Livy (De civ. Dei, 3, 7). 37  “Neither age nor sex inspired pity: places sacred and profane were razed indifferently to the ground; among them, the most noted religious center of these tribes, known as the temple of Tamfana” (Tac., Ann., 1, 51). 38  See Rutledge (2007), 183. 39  “The next step was to install a garrison among the conquered population and to demolish the groves consecrated to their savage cults” (Tac., Ann., 14, 30). 35

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

172

Gambash points out that the severity of Suetonius Paulinus is easily understood if interpreted on a political level. Given the recalcitrant position taken by the Druids and, more generally, given the local employment of the Celtic religion in the war, the cult and its priests were necessarily perceived by Rome as direct, active enemies of the empire. Seen from this perspective, the explanation for the burning of the sacred groves would lie in the wish of the Roman general to act against a center of fierce local opposition, whether as part of the punitive measures taken against the indigenous population or as an attempt to eliminate elements potentially disruptive to Roman rule.40 The practice of eradicating cults that functioned as a political or military center of resistance was conceivably longstanding. What happened on the island of Mona in Britain and the suppression of the Druids and the German prophetesses are only, it would appear, the most visible instances of a widespread phenomenon. No necessary link, therefore, may be found to have existed between Hadrian’s and Antiochus’ policies in Judaea.

40

 Gambash (2015), 152.

CONCLUSIONS Combining together the epigraphical evidence found during the archaeological excavations in Jerusalem and that pertaining to Hadrian’s visit to Judaea, it is possible to conclude that Aelia Capitolina was officially founded sometime between late May and early July 130.1 The decision to found the colony, however, must have been taken by Hadrian some ten years earlier, in the 120s, as is borne out by the findings of the so-called ‘Roman dump’ discovered during the archaeological excavations carried out in the north-western part of the Western Wall Plaza of the Old City of Jerusalem.2 The archaeological excavations carried out at Shu’afat, moreover, were no less meaningful, in that they revealed the existence of a site until then unknown, established after the Great War of 70 CE and inhabited by Romans and Jews, which was systematically abandoned in or after 130,3 a fact which may be taken to confirm the reliability of the decree mentioned by Hadrian, attesting to the exclusion of the Jews from the new colony and its surroundings. These new findings, therefore, allow us to argue that the founding of Aelia Capitolina, along with other factors,4 did play a role in prompting the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War. As Grabbe points out, Aelia Capitolina may have served as a catalyst which brought things to a head.5 It is therefore remarkable that Dio saw the connection between the new colony and the war that followed,6 while 1

 See above, 29-31.  See above, 31-39. 3  See above, 77-79. 4  On the identifications of the causes of the war, different views appear in the works of Schäfer (1981), 78-102; Applebaum (1983/84), 81; Schäfer (1990), 281303; Grabbe (1992), 581-583; Schäfer (2003a), 145-148; Sartre (2005), 127; Witulski (2012), 228, 259; Mor (2016), 25, 75-105, 115-118. 5  Grabbe (1992), 574. This view has been challenged by Bowersock and Mildenberg (see Isaac and Oppenheimer [1998g], 235, note 56). See also Erlich (2002), 115-116 and Mor (2016), 128. 6  “At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina… This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that 2

174

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

lacking all the archaeological data we possess today. Even if he had found this notion in the source he used, the fact that he chose to endorse it appears to be one more token of his remarkable historical insight.7 The question arises, how does the founding of Aelia Capitolina fit into the picture of Hadrian’s concern for the general peace and welfare of the Empire,8 what Thornton calls “his ecumenical view of the empire.”9 According to Halfmann, the colony established in Jerusalem was a deviation and a contradiction,10 and, along the same lines, Boatwright, too, observes: To maintain its provinces, imperial Rome had had to modify this stance, to compromise, and to admit the conquered to higher status; Rome had to give as well as take. Most of Hadrian’s interactions with cities exemplify the varied means by which the Roman empire governed to the mutual benefit of capital and provinces. Colonia Aelia Capitolina laid bare the military oppression and totalitarian measures Rome could employ to preserve supremacy and empire.11

foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there” (69, 12, 1-2). 7  See above, 44-45. 8  Meckler (1996), 367 cites the view of Henry Francis Pelham, the Camden Professor at Oxford, that “between the time of Augustus and that of Diocletian, there was no emperor who so correctly appreciated the needs of empire, or who carried into practice with equal consistency a deliberate and comprehensive policy.” Mattingly and Sydenham (1968), 331, point out that “there is good ground for thinking that Hadrian’s care for the provinces went beyond more material things, such as better roads or aqueducts, and that he seriously endeavoured to keep alive the local spirit and traditions.” See also Mehlman (2014), 18-20. 9  Thornton (1975), 446. See the legends LIBERALITAS, PIETAS, SECURITAS, TRANQUILLITAS, FELICITAS, FIDES, FORTUNA, PROVIDENTIA, CONCORDIA, CLEMENTIA, INDULGENTIA appearing on Hadrian’s coins (Robertson [1971], 102-105, 106-109, 117; 120-121; 125, 138; 142-147; 150-151; 153-154; 172-174; 176; 193-195; 203-206; 467-481) and the testimony of the HA “On taking possession of the imperial power Hadrian at once resumed the policy of the early emperors, and devoted his attention to maintaining peace throughout the world” (HA, Hadr., 5, 1). 10  Halfmann (1986), 44. 11  Boatwright (2000), 202.

CONCLUSIONS

175

Zahrnt wonders whether Hadrian may have been aware of what Jerusalem represented for the Jewish population when he decided to found Aelia Capitolina,12 and Sartre, too, questions whether he may have been aware that his plan in Jerusalem would not have been positively accepted in Judaea, and whether it ever occurred to him that since the ruins of Jerusalem were sacred to the Jews, any pagan edifice would be regarded as sacrilege.13 Bazzana contends that he had at his disposal many examples of Jewish sensitivity to the presence of idolatrous cults or images since the conquest of the country by Pompey,14 but the fact that such examples were available, one might say, does not necessarily mean that Hadrian was aware of them. How acquainted he may, or may not, have been with Jewish traditions is not known,15 and the question whether his disregard of Jewish sensibilities was deliberate or accidental is impossible to answer, but his personal view of Judaism, or of other eastern cults, appears not to be relevant in our case. Some scholars rely on a passage of the HA which asserts that Hadrian “was scrupulous in keeping Roman sacred rites but despised foreign cults,”16 arguing that the ‘Roman’ rites may be taken to refer to the Greco-Roman culture, while the 12  See Zahrnt (1991), 481. The Romans, Mattern (1999), 68-70, points out, had no real way to obtain political and military information on foreign territories systematically and objectively. “Merchants could be questioned, but they were unreliable; the information of prisoners and refugees became outdated quickly. Permanent legations or ambassadors to foreign lands were unknown in the ancient world… their decisions were based more on a traditional and stereotyped view of foreign peoples than on systematic intelligence about their political, social, and cultural institutions.” 13  Sartre (2005), 129. 14  Bazzana (2010), 89, note 13. 15  See above, 141-142. 16  Sacra Romana diligentissime curavit, peregrina contempsit (HA, Hadr., 22, 9-10). Walton (1957), 167 observes that this passage was probably modelled on that which Suetonius wrote about Augustus: “He treated with great respect such foreign rites as were ancient and well established, but held the rest in contempt. For example, having been initiated at Athens and afterwards sitting in judgment of a case at Rome involving the privileges of the priests of Attic Ceres, in which certain matters of secrecy were brought up, he dismissed his counsellors and the throng of bystanders and heard the disputants in private. But, on the other hand, he not only omitted to make a slight detour to visit Apis, when he was travelling through Egypt, but highly commended his grandson Gaius for not offering prayers at Jerusalem as he passed by Judaea” (Suetonius, Aug., 93, 1 = Stern [1980], no. 304).

176

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

‘foreign’ ones probably alluded to cultures falling outside or rejecting the Greco-Roman one,17 but this interpretation is doubtful. As Walton points out, some reverse types of the coins issued by Hadrian for the province of Asia, commemorate the ancient cults of the chief religious centers of the province and provide a rare survey of the Asiatic temples and local gods, many of whom in primitive idol forms barely touched by the transforming ‘interpretatio Graeca,’18 and Smallwood, too, notes that the statement of the HA “cannot stand in the face of Hadrian’s visit to the shrine of Memnon and his portrayal of the Isis-cult as the contribution of Egypt to the empire on his ‘province’ and ‘adventus’ coins.”19 What is crucial for a correct understanding of Hadrian’s politics is his willingness to include the gods of the eastern religions within the Roman pantheon20 or to reject them according to the requirements of the political circumstances. It is therefore doubtful if one may endorse the view that “as a fully committed Hellenist, Hadrian felt nothing but scorn for the Jews, whose ideologies openly resented Roman rule and resisted the universal appeal of the Hellenic idea.”21 What Hadrian may have, or have not, known about Jewish ideologies is impossible to ascertain, but it is certain that he was well acquainted with the chaos created by the Jewish Diaspora Uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Cyprus and Mesopotamia. In this last country, the Jews seemingly took part in the Parthian War fighting on the side of the Parthians against the Roman forces. In Egypt, at least, the uprisings had not yet been quelled by the time Hadrian became emperor in the August of 117, and we know that he, personally, had to deal with them, until a complete victory was attained.22 From a number of inscriptions unearthed in Libya, we also know that he later paid for the repair of a number of sacred and profane buildings which had been damaged during the revolt. As for the situation obtaining in Judaea, if he had inquired 17

 Boatwright (2000), 128.  See Walton (1957), 168. Mattingly and Sydenham (1968), 335, too, observe that the ‘Cistophori’ of Asia issued by Hadrian refer not to the imperial religion, but to the diverse local cults of the province. 19  Smallwood (1976), 434. 20  See Mor (2016), 109. 21  Everitt (2009), 39. 22  See above, 96. 18

CONCLUSIONS

177

about past events, he would have learnt that a countless number of armed episodes against the Roman government had repeatedly broken out in Judaea from the moment the country was conquered by Pompey in 63 BCE onwards. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the place Jerusalem held in Jewish tradition must have been irrelevant. Cultural and religious issues elements may have been significant if and when they were deemed to serve political interests, but may have been inconsequential to Hadrian vis-à-vis political and strategic considerations. After the repression of the Diaspora Uprisings and the disorders which took place in Judaea in the time of Quietus, Aelia Capitolina was probably meant to stabilize a country where insubordination had been endemic for almost two hundred years, by turning its epicentre, Jerusalem, into an integral part of the surrounding pagan world, devoid of Jewish presence. This objective, it appears, constituted the priority which led Hadrian to undervalue, and therefore to disregard, the sensibilities of Judean Jews and their possible reactions.23 On one hand, this may be regarded, as Birley points out, as “an appalling misjudgement.”24 The Bar Kokhba War which followed caught the Romans by surprise and caused a state of emergency in Rome, which is attested to by the extraordinary measures taken to prevent the crisis from getting out of hand. These measures included the exceptional dispatch to Judaea of Iulius Severus, against the hierarchic customs of the time, along with other supreme generals,25 and the conscription by the state carried out in Italy and in the Alpine provinces, which was both uncommon and unpopular. Huge military forces are attested to in Judaea at the time of the war: it appears that in addition to the two legions of the Judaean garrison, at least seven more legions took part in the war, either in full force or represented by vexillationes. The fighting was hard and losses heavy: the legio XXII Deiotariana was probably annihilated in the first stages of the war.26 23

 Wekert (2016), 348.  Birley (1997), 228. See also Malitz (2006), 145-146. 25  Among them were C. Quinctius Certus Publicius Marcellus, the governor of Syria, and T. Haterius Nepos, the governor of Arabia. The three of them received the ornamenta triumphalia after the end of the war. See above, 128-129. 26  See Eck (1999), 78-86. 24

178

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

The final victory was, as Eck aptly defines it, a hard-won victory,27 which explains the reason why reporting on the war to the senate Hadrian omitted the initial standard phrase “If you and your children are in health, it is well. I and the legions are in health.”28 On the other hand, the doubling of the Roman military presence in the country, the decision to turn Jerusalem into a Roman colony free of Jews, and the measures taken by Hadrian in the wake of the Bar Kokhba War, attained the result hoped for, that of crushing Judean rebelliousness. In the long term, therefore, one might say that Hadrian’s policy was successful – successful, of course, from the Roman point of view. It is, as always, a question of perspective.

27

 See Eck (2007), 42-51.  Dio, 69, 14, 3. According to Millar, this passage of Dio may have relied on Hadrian’s Autobiography. See above, 42. On the consequences of the war, see also Eck (2014c), 229-244. 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Noam. “Stamp Impressions of the Tenth Legion from the Temple Mount Excavations.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Ed. Eilat Mazar. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 318-332. Adler, William. “Eusebius’ Chronicle and Its Legacy.” In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata. Studia PostBiblica 42 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 467-491. Alföldi, Geza. Römische Heeresgeschichte: Beiträge (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1987). Alföldi, Géza. “La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano.” In La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano. Atti del Convegno Internazionale “La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano” (Roma, 13-16 gennaio 1994). Ed. Gábor Hajnóczi (Milano: Electa, 1995), 25-40. Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.). Transl. by Gershon Levi (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Vol. 1, 1980; Vol. 2, 1984). Amandry, Michel and Burnett, Andrew. Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. 3, Part 1 (London: British Museum Press, 2015). Applebaum, Shimon. Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132-135) (Oxford: BAR, 1976). Applebaum, Shimon. “Points of View on the Second Jewish Revolt.” SCI 7 (1983/84), 77-87. Applebaum, Shimon. Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989). Ariel, Donald T. and Bijovski, Gabriela. “The Numismatic Evidence and the History of Sepphoris.” In The Architecture, Stratigraphy and Artifacts of the Western Summit of Sepphoris. Eds. Eric M. Meyers et al. (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 485-587. Arnaud, Pascal. “L’image du globe dans le monde romain: science, iconographie, symbolique.” In Mélanges de l’École francaise de Rome: Antiquité 96 (1983), 53-116. Arubas, Benny and Goldfus, Haim. “The Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion Fretensis.” In The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research. Vol. 1. Ed. John H. Humphrey. JRA Supp. Series 14 (Ann Arbor, MI: Cushing-Malloy, 1995), 95-107.

180

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Attridge, Harold W. and Hata, Gohei. “Introduction.” In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata. Studia Post-Biblica 42 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 27-49. Avi-Yonah, Michael. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): a Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966). Avi-Yona, Michael. “The Caesarea Porphyry Statue.” IEJ 20 (1970), 203-208. Avner, Rina; Greenwald, Ro’i; Ecker, Avner; and Cotton, Hannah M. “A New-Old Monumental Inscription from Jerusalem in Honor of the Emperor Hadrian.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Sorroundings. Vol. 8. Eds. Guy D. Stiebel et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014), 96-101. (Hebrew) Avni, Gideon. “The Urban Limits of Roman and Byzantine Jerusalem: a View from the Necropolis.” JRA 18 (2005), 373-396. Avni, Gideon and Adawi, Zubeir. “Excavations on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem, and the North Cemetery of Aelia Capitolina.” ‘Atiqot 80 (2015), 45-71. Avni, Gideon. “The Necropoleis of Aelia Capitolina: Burial Practices, Ethnicity, and the City Limits.” In Roman Jerusalem: A New Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017), 123-130. Baker, Renan. “Epiphanius, ‘On Weights and Measures’ § 14: Hadrian’s Journeys to the East and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem.” ZPE 182 (2012), 157-167. Baldwin, Barry. “Dio Cassius on the Period A.D. 98-180: Some Problematic Passages.” Athenaeum 63 (1985), 195-197. Bar, Doran. “The Southern Boundary of Aelia Capitolina and the Location of the Tenth Roman Legion Camp.” Cathedra 69 (1993), 37-56. (Hebrew) Bar, Doran. “Aelia Capitolina and the Location of the Camp of the Tenth Legion.” PEQ 130 (1998), 8-19. Barnard, Leslie William. “Hadrian and Judaism.” JRH 5 (1969), 285-298. Barnes, Timothy D. The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1978). Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981). Barnes, Timothy D. “The Composition of Cassius Dio’s Roman History.” Phoenix 38 (1984), 240-255. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. “The Religious Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes as a Historical Reality.” Tarbiz 84 (2016), 295-344. (Hebrew) Bar-Nathan, Rachel and Sklar-Parnes, Deborah A. “A Jewish Settlement in Orine between the Two Revolts.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

Jerusalem and Its Region: Collected Papers. Vol. 1. Eds. Joseph Patrich and David Amit (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority – Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology, 2007), 57-64. (Hebrew) Bar-Nathan Rachel and Bijovsky, Gabriela. “The Emperor Plowing: Cause or Effect? A Hadrianic Coin from Excavations at Shu’afat and the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” INR 13 (2018), 139-150. Barton, Ian M. “Capitoline Temples in Italy and the Provinces (especially Africa).” ANRW II, 12, 1 (1982), 259-342. Bazzana, Giovanni Battista. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt and Hadrian’s Religious Policy.” In Hadrian and the Christians. Ed. Marco Rizzi (Berlin/ New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2010), 85-109. Beaujeu, Jean. La religion romaine à l’apogée de l’Empire, I. La politique religieuse des Antonines (96–192) (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1955). Beer, Moshe. “An Ancient Saying Regarding Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Times.” Zion 28 (1963), 228-232. (Hebrew) Belayche, Nicole. “Du Mont du Temple au Golgotha: le Capitole de la colonie d’Aelia Capitolina.” RHR 214 (1997), 387-413. Belayche, Nicole. “Dimenticare…Gerusalemme – Les paganismes à Aelia Capitolina du IIe au IVe siècle de notre ère.” REJ 158 (1999), 287348. Belayche, Nicole. Judaea-Palaestina: the Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Belayche, Nicole. “Tyché et la Tyché dans les cités de la Palestine romaine.” Syria 80 (2003), 111-138. Bennet, Julian. Trajan, Optimus Princeps. A Life and Times (London/New York: Routledge, 1997). Ben Zeev, Miriam. “The Myth of Cicero’s Anti-Judaism.” in Religio Licita? Rom und die Juden. Eds. Görge K. Hasselhoff et al. Studia Judaica 84 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2017), 105-134. Ben Zeev, Miriam. “New Insights into Roman Policy in Judea on the Eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” JSJ 49 (2018), 84-107. Ben Zeev Hofman, Miriam. “New Perspectives on the ‘War of Qitos’.” In Tra politica e religione: I Giudei nel mondo greco-romano. Studi in onore di Lucio Troiani. Ed. Livia Capponi (Milano: Editoriale Jouvence, 2019), 205-224. Ben Zeev Hofman, Miriam. “Eusebius and Hadrian’s Founding of Aelia Capitolina in Jerusalem.” Electrum 26 (2019a), 119-128. Ben Zeev Hofman, Miriam. “Might Antiochus’ Measures in Judea Have Had an Impact on those Later Enacted by Hadrian?” Materia Giudaica 25 (2020), 411-417. Bénabou, Marcel. La résistance africaine à la romanisation (Paris: François Maspero, 1976).

182

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Benario, Herbert W. A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1980). Benjamin, Anna S. “The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program.” Hesperia 32 (1963), 57-86. Bennett, Julian. Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times (London: Routledge, 1997). Bérard, François. “Territorium legionis: camps militaires et agglomérations civiles aux premiers siècles de l’empire.” CCG 3 (1992), 75-105. Berger, Paul-Richard. “Rabbi Jehoschua ben Chananja. Weltbürger zwischen babylonischer Astrologie und biblischer Theologie.” In Grenzgänge: Menschen und Schicksale zwischen jüdischer, christlicher und deutscher Identität: Festschrift für Diethard Aschoff. Ed. Folker Siegert (Münster: LIT, 2002), 98-116 (non vidi). Bernini, Andrea. “Un riconoscimento di debito redatto a Colonia Aelia Capitolina.” ZPE 206 (2018), 183-193. Bernini, Andrea. “New Evidence for Colonia Aelia Capitolina (P. Mich VII 445 + inv. 3888c + inv. 3944k).” In Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of Papyrology, Barcelona 2016 (Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2019), 557-562. Bieberstein, Klaus. “Aelia Capitolina.” In Jerusalem before Islam. Eds. Zeidan Kafafi and Robert Schick (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007), 134-168. Bijovsky, Gabriela. “The Coin Finds from the Shu’fat (Giv’at Shaul) Excavations: Preliminary Report.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region: Collected Papers. Vol. 1. Eds. Joseph Patrich and David Amit (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority – Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeology, 2007), 65-72. (Hebrew) Bijovsky, Gabriela. “Coins of the Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods.” In Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 1. The Roman and Byzantine Remains: Architecture and Stratigraphy. Eds. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn. IAA Reports, No. 63 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2019), 165-193. Birley, Anthony R. The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). Birley, Anthony R. “Indirect Means of Detecting Marius Maximus.” Historiae Augustae Colloquium Maceratense 1992. Eds. Giorgio Bonamente and Gianfranco Paci (Bari: Edipuglia, 1995), 57-74. Birley, Anthony R. Hadrian: the Restless Emperor (London: Routledge, 1997). Birley, Anthony R. “Marius Maximus: the Consular Biographer.” ANRW 2, 34, 3 (1997a), 2678-2757. Birley, Anthony R. “Hadrian and the Antonines.” CAH 2nd ed. Vol. 11 (2000), 132-194. Birley, Anthony R. “Hadrian’s Travels.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476), Rome, March 20-23, 2002. Eds. Lukas de Blois et al. (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2003), 425-441. Birley, Anthony R. The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Birley, Anthony R. “Hadrian, Circumcision and the Bar Kokhba War.” JRA 19 (2006), 671-681. Birley, Eric. “Africana in the Historia Augusta.” BHAC 1968-1969 (Bonn 1970), 79-90. Bloch, René. “Review of Werner Eck, Judäa - Syria Palästina, Tübingen 2014.” SCI 34 (2015), 263-266. Boatwright, Mary T. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Boissevain, Ursulus Philippus. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani: historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, vol. 3 (Berolini: apud Weidmannos, 1901). Bovon, François and Duffy, John M. “A New Greek Fragment from Ariston of Pella’s ‘Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus’.” HThR 105 (2012), 457-465. Bowersock, Glen Warren. “A Roman Perspective on the Bar Kochba War.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Vol. 2. Ed. William Scott Green (Missoula, Mont.: Published by Scholars Press for Brown University, 1980), 131-141. Bowersock, Glen Warren. Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983). Bowersock, Glen Warren. “Hadrian and Metropolis.” In BHAC 1982/1983 (Bonn: Habelt, 1985), 75-88. Breglia, Laura. Roman Imperial Coins, their Art & Technique (New York/ Washington: Frederick A. Praeger Publisher, 1968). Brélaz, Cédric. Philippes, colonie romaine d’Orient: Recherches d’histoire institutionnelle et sociale (Athènes: École francaise d’Athènes, 2018). Brizzi, Giovanni. 70 D.C.: La Conquista di Gerusalemme (Roma/Bari: GLF Editori Laterza, 2015). Broshi Magen et al. Eds. Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon. Studies in the History, Archaeology and Geography of Eretz Israel (Jerusalem: Iedidim, 1977). Bruns, J. Edgar. “The Altercatio Iasonis et Papisci, Philo, and Anastasius the Sinaite.” TS 34 (1973), 286-294. Brunt, Peter A. “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes.” CQ 30 (1980), 477-494. Bruun, Christian. “The Spurious “Expeditio Iudaeae” under Trajan.” ZPE 93 (1992), 99-106. Burrell, Barbara. “Temples of Hadrian not Zeus.” GRBS 23 (2003), 31-50. Cabaret, Dominique Marie. La topographie de la Jérusalem antique: Essais sur l’urbanisme fossile, défenses et portes, IIe s. av.- IIe s. ap. J-C (Leuven: Peeters, 2020).

184

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Cancik, Hubert. “Die ‘Repräsentation’ von ‘Provinzen’ (nationes, gentes) in Rom. Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung von ‘Reichsreligion’ vom 1. Jahrhundert v.Chr. bis zum 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr.” In Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion. Eds. Hubert Cancik and Jörg Rüpke (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 129-143. Capponi, Livia. “Hadrian in Jerusalem and Alexandria in 117.” Athenaeum 98/2 (2010), 489-501. Carriker, Andrew J. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 67 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003). Cayón, Juan R. Los sestercios del Imperio Romano. Vol. II (Madrid: Juan R. Cayón, 1984). Chancey, Mark A. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Ciecielag, Jerzy. “Anti-Jewish Policy of the Roman Empire from Vespasian to Hadrian in the Light of Numismatic Sources. Fact or Myth?” INR 1 (2006), 101-110. Cizek, Eugèn. L’époque de Trajan: circonstances politiques et problèmes idéologiques (Paris: Société d’édition “Les belles lettres” - Bucuresti: Editura Stiintifica, 1983). Clay, Curtis L. “The Roman Imperial Coinage of Trajan.” The Numismatic Chronicle 172 (2012), 347-362. Collins, John J. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (Missoula: Scholars’ Press, 1974). Collins, John J. “Sibylline Oracles (Second Century B.C.-Seventh Century A.D).” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. Ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1983), 317-472. Collins, John J. “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition.” ANRW 2, 20, 1 (1987), 421-459. Cotton, Hannah M. “Some Aspects of the Roman Administration of Judaea/Syria Palaestina.” In Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert. Ed. Werner Eck (München: R. Oldenburg, 1999), 75-91. Cotton, Hannah M. and Eck, Werner. “Governors and Their Personnel on Latin Inscriptions from Caesarea Maritima.” IASH 7, 7 (2001), 215-240. Cotton, Hanna and Eck, Werner. “A New Inscription from Caesarea Maritima and the Local Elite of Caesarea Maritima.” In What Athens Has to do with Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster. Ed. Leonard V. Rutgers (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 375-391. Cotton, Hannah M. “The Impact of the Roman Army in the Province of Judaea/Syria Palaestina.” In The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC– AD 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects. Eds.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

Lukas de Bois and Elio Cascio (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2007), 393408. Cotton, Hannah M. “‘In lieu of an article’: Reflection on Hadrian, Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jews.” In A Roman Miscellany: Essays in honor of Anthony R. Birley on his Seventieth Birthday. Eds. Hans M. Schellenberg et al. (Gdansk: Foundation for the Development of Gdansk University, 2008), 14-16. Cotton, Hannah M. and Eck, Werner. “An Imperial Arch in the Colonia Aelia Capitolina: A Fragment of a Latin Inscription in the Islamic Museum of the Haram ash-Sarif.” In Israel’s Land: Papers Presented to Isreal Shatzman on his Jubilee. Eds. Joseph Geiger et al. (Ra’anana: The Open University of Israel – Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 97*118*. Cotton Paltiel, Hanna M. and Ecker, Avner. “Reflections on the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” in Past as Present: Essays on Roman History in Honour of Guido Clemente. Eds. Giovanni A. Cecconi et al. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), 681-695. Crawford, Michael H. Roman Republican Coinage. Vol. 1 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Dabrowa, Edward. Legio X Fretensis. A Prosopographic Study of its Officers (I–III c. A.D) (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993). Dabrowa, Edward. “Legio X Fretensis.” In Les légions de Rome sous le HautEmpire: actes du Congrès de Lyon (15-17 septembre 1998). Ed. Yann Le Bohec (Lyon/Paris: Centre d’études romaines et gallo-romaines, 2000), 317-325. Dabrowa, Edward. “Les légions romaines au Proche-Orient: l’apport de la numismatique.” Electrum 5 (2001), 73-85. Dabrowa, Edward. “Hadrianic Governors of Syria: a Reappraisal.” ZPE 201 (2017), 285-291. Dabrowa, Edward. “Les colonies honoraires ou les colonies de vétérans? Observations sur l’iconographie de quelques types de revers des monnaies coloniales.” In Hommages à Carl Deroux. III. Histoire et épigraphie, Droit. Ed. Pol Defosse (Bruxelles: Latomus, 2002-2003), 127-134. Repr. in Edward Dabrowa. Camps, Campaigns, Colonies: Roman Military Presence in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Near East. Selected Studies (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2020), 97-104. Dabrowa, Edward. “Le uexillum sur les monnaies coloniales (IIe – IIIe s. après J.-C.).” Latomus 63 (2004), 394-405. Repr. in Edward Dabrowa. Camps, Campaigns, Colonies: Roman Military Presence in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Near East. Selected Studies (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2020a), 105-114. Dabrowa, Edward. “Colonial Coinage and Religious Life of Roman Colonies.” In L’armée romaine et la religion sous le Haut-Empire romain. Actes

186

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

du quatrième Congrès de Lyon (26-28 octobre 2006). Eds. C. Wolff and Y. Le Bohec (Lyon 2009), 65–72. Repr. in Edward Dabrowa. Camps, Campaigns, Colonies: Roman Military Presence in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Near East. Selected Studies (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2020b), 89-95. Dabrowa, Edward. “Military Colonization in the Near East and Mesopotamia under the Severi.” In Roman Frontier Studies 2009. Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) held at Newcastle upon Tyne in August 2009. Eds. N. Hodgson et al. (Oxford: Archeopress Publishing, 2017), 373-378. Repr. in Edward Dabrowa. Camps, Campaigns, Colonies: Roman Military Presence in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Near East. Selected Studies (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2020c), 149-155. Dabrowa, Edward. “Veterans and the Urban Policy of Roman Emperors.” In Edward Dabrowa. Camps, Campaigns, Colonies: Roman Military Presence in Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Near East. Selected Studies (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2020d), 157-170. Dabrowa, Edward. “Review of Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah, Aelia Capitolina – Jerusalem in the Roman Period in Light of Archaeological Research. Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2020.” Electrum 27 (2020e), 259-261. Dancy John C. A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1954). Danziger, Danny and Purcell, Nicholas. Hadrian’s Empire: When Rome Ruled the World (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2005). Daris, Sergio. “Legio Traiana Fortis.” In Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire: actes du Congrès de Lyon (15-17 septembre 1998). Ed. Yann Le Bohec (Lyon/Paris: Centre d’études romaines et gallo-romaines, 2000), 359-363. Dávid, Nóra. “Μεμορια Iudati patiri. Some Notes to the Study of the Beginnings of Jewish Presence in Roman Pannonia.” In People under Power: Early Jewish and Christian Responses to the Roman Power Empire. Eds. Michael Labahn and Outi Lehtipuu (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015), 79-98. Degrassi, Attilio. “Il papiro 1026 della Società italiana e i diplomi militari romani.” Aegyptus 10 (1929), 242-254. Deines Ronald. “How Long? God’s Revealed Schedule for Salvation and the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” In Judaism and Crisis: Crisis as a Catalyst in Jewish Cultural History. Eds. Armin Lange et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 201-234. DeLaine, Janet. “The Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus and Roman Attitudes to Exceptional Construction.” Papers of the British School at Rome 70 (2002), 205-230. Den Boer, Willem. “Religion and Literature in Hadrian’s Policy.” Mnemosyne 8 (1955), 123-144.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

Derow, Peter S. “Rome, the Fall of Macedon and the Sack of Corinth.” CAH, 2nd ed. Vol. 8 (1989), 290-323. De Vincenz, Anna. “The Pottery Assemblage from the Bakery.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968-1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Ed. Eilat Mazar. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 185-194. Di Segni, Leah. “A New Toponym in Southern Samaria.” Liber Annuus 44 (1994), 579-584. Di Segni, Leah. “The Hadrianic Inscription from Southern Samaria (?) – A Palinode.” Liber Annuus 53 (2003), 335-340. Di Segni, Leah and Arubas, Benjamin. “An Old-New Inscription from Beth Shean.” In Man near a Roman Arch. Studies Presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir. Eds. Leah Di Segni et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 133*-141* Di Segni, Leah and Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “Three Military Bread Stamps from the Western Wall Plaza Excavations, Jerusalem.” Atiqot 70 (2012), 21-31. Di Segni, Leah. “Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” Liber Annuus 64 (2014), 441-451. Di Segni, Leah. “Three Military Bread Stamps.” In Jerusalem. Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 3: The Roman and Byzantine Periods: Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts. Eds. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn, IAA Reports no. 67 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2021), 135-139. Dobson B. and Mann, J.C. “The Roman Army in Britain and Britons in the Roman Army.” Britannia 4 (1973), 191-205. Doran, Robert. “The Persecution of Judaeans by Antiochus IV: the Significance of ‘Ancestral Laws’.” In The ‘Other’ in Second Temple Judaism. Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Eds. Daniel C. Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2011), 423-433. Doran, Robert. “Resistance and Revolt: the Case of the Maccabees.” In Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: in the Crucible of Empire. Eds. John J. Collins and Joseph G. Manning, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 85 (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2016), 175-188. Droge, Arthur J. “The Apologetic Dimensions of the Ecclesiastical History.” In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, Studia Post-Biblica 42 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 492509. Dürr, J. Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian (Wien: Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1881). Dusanic, Slobodan. “The Award of the Military Diploma.” Arheoloski Vestnik 33 (1982), 197-232.

188

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Eck, Werner. “Hadrian als pater patriae und die Verleihung des AugustaTitels an Sabina.” In Romanitas-Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit. Festschrift für J. Straub zum 70 Geb. Ed. Gerhard Wirth (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1982), 217-229. Eck, Werner. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View.” JRS 89 (1999), 76-89. Eck, Werner et al. “Neue Diplome für Auxiliartruppen in den dakischen Provinzen.” AMN 38 (2001), 27-48. Eck, Werner. “Hadrian, the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the Epigraphic Transmission.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 153-170. Eck, Werner. “The Language of Power. Latin in the Inscriptions of Iudaea/ Syria Palaestina.” In Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine. Ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2003a), 123-144. Eck, Werner. “Ehret den Kaiser. Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea.” In The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious (Qoh 10:12): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Ed. Mauro Perani (Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2005), 153-165. Eck, Werner. “Rom und das jüdische Volk. Orte der Niederlagen und triumphale Erinnerungen.” In Erinnerungsort der Antike. Die römische Welt. Eds. Elke Stein-Hölkeskamp and Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2006), 570-585. Eck, Werner. “Hadrian’s Hard-Won Victory: Romans Suffer Severe Losses in Jewish War.” BArch.R 33/5 (2007), 42-51. Eck, Werner. Rom und Judaea: fünf Vorträge zur römischen Herrschaft in Palaestina (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007a). Eck, Werner. “Statues and Inscriptions in Iudaea/Syria Palaestina.” In The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Eds. Yaron Z. Eliav et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 273-293. Eck, Werner. “Revision lateinischer Inschriften aus Jerusalem.” ZPE 169 (2009), 213-229. Eck, Werner. “Eine Rasur auf einer Statuenbasis aus Jerusalem.” ZPE 173 (2010), 219-222. Eck, Werner. “Konsuln des Jahres 117 in Militärdiplomen Traians mit tribunicia potestas XX.” ZPE 185 (2013), 235-238. Eck, Werner. “‘Praesentia Caesaris’ in der Provinz Judäa/Syria Palästina.” SCI 33 (2014), 17-31. Eck, Werner. “Caesarea Maritima. Eine römische Stadt.” In Idem. Judäa, Syria Palästina: die Auseinandersetzung einer Provinz mit romischer Politik und Kultur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014a), 150-162.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Eck, Werner. “Eine Rasur auf einer Statuenbasis aus Jerusalem.” In Idem. Judäa-Syria Palästina. Die Auseinandersetzung einer Provinz mit römischer Politik und Kultur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014b), 98-101. Eck, Werner. “Der Bar Kochba-Aufstand der Jahre 132-136 und seine Folgen für die Provinz Syria Palästina.” In Idem. Judäa-Syria Palästina. Die Auseinandersetzung einer Provinz mit römischer Politik und Kultur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014c), 229-244. Eck, Werner. “Flavius Iuncus, Bürger von Flavia Neapolis, ein kaiserlicher Prokurator?” [1999]. Repr. in Werner Eck. Judäa-Syria Palästina. Die Auseinandersetzung einer Provinz mit römischer Politik und Kultur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014d), 74-82. Eck, Werner. “Honorary Statues as Means of Public Communication in Iudaea/Syria Palaestina.” SCI 34 (2015), 19-26. Eck, Werner. “Soldaten und Veteranen des römischen Heeres in Iudaea/ Syria Palaestina und ihre inschriftlichen Zeugnisse.” In ‘Let the Wise Listen and Add to their Learning’ (Prov. 1:5): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday. Eds. Constanza Cordoni and Gerhard Langer (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 127-140. Eck, Werner. “Die Colonia Aelia Capitolina: Überlegungen zur Anfangsphase der zweiten römischen Kolonie in der Provinz Iudaea-Syria Palaestina.” Electrum 26 (2019), 129-139. Ecker, Avner and Cotton, Hannah M. “The Date of the Founding of Aelia Capitolina.” In Haim Gitler. “Roman Coinages of Palestine.” In The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Ed. William E. Metcalf (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 492-493. Ecker, Avner. The Urbanization of Roman Iudea/Palestina from the First Century BCE to the Fourth Century CE. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2016). Ecker, Avner and Cotton, Hannah M. “The Legio X Fretensis Welcomes the Emperor: A Latin Inscription on a Monument Erected for Hadrian in 129/130 CE.” Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 9 (2018-2019), 59-67. Ecker, Avner. “The Training Ground (Campus) of the Legio X Fretensis in Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina – a Possible Identification North of the Damascus Gate.” Electrum 26 (2019), 109-117. Eliav, Yaron Z. “Hadrian’s Actions in the Jerusalem Temple Mount according to Cassius Dio and Xiphilini Manus.” JSQ 4 (1997), 125-144. Eliav, Yaron Z. “The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina – a New View from the Perspective of the Temple Mount.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 241-277. Eliav, Yaron Z. God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place and Memory (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005).

190

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Eliav Yaron Z. “The Desolating Sacrilege: a Jewish-Christian Discourse on Statuary, Space and Sanctity.” In The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Ed. Yaron Z. Eliav et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 605-627. Erkelenz, Dirk. “Keine Konkurrenz zum Kaiser. Zur Verleihung der Titel ‘Ktistes’ und ‘Soter’ in der römischen Kaiserzeit.” SCI 21 (2002), 61-77. Erlich, Michael. “On the Distinction between the Establishment of Aelia Capitolina and the Construction of a Roman Shrine on the Temple Mount according to Epiphanius of Salamis.” New Studies on Jerusalem 8 (2002), 111-116. (Hebrew) Eshel, Hanan. “Aelia Capitolina: Jerusalem No More.” BArch.R 23/6 (1997), 46-48, 73. Eshel, Hanan, Zissu, Boaz and Frumkin, Amos. “Two Refuge Caves in Wadi Suweinit.” In Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Vol. 1. Ed. Hanan Eshel and David Amit (Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society; The College of Judaea and Samaria; C.G, Foundation Jerusalem, 1998), 93-109. (Hebrew) Eshel, Hanan. “The Date of the Founding of Aelia Capitolina.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 637-643. Eshel, Hanan and Zissu, Boaz. “Coins from the el-Jai Cave in Nahal Mikhmash (Wadi Suweinit).” INJ 14 (2002), 168-172. Eshel, Hanan. “‘Bethar Was Captured and the City Was Plowed’: Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.” EAHGS 28 (2007), 21-28. (Hebrew) Euzennat, Maurice M. “Troubles de Maurétanie.” CRAI 128 (1984), 372-391. Everitt, Anthony. Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (New York: Random House, 2009). Farhi Yoav and Melamed, Alexander. “Two Coin Hoards from Underground Complexes at Nesher-Ramla Quarry.” Israel Numismatic Research 9 (2014), 109-131. Felder, Stephen. “What is the Fifth Sibylline Oracle?” JSJ 33/4 (2002), 363-385. Feldman, Louis H. “Some Observations on the Name of Palestine” [1990]. Repr. in Louis H. Feldmann, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden/ New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 553-576. Fettweis, Christopher J. “Restraining Rome: Lessons in Grand Strategy from Emperor Hadrian.” Survival 60/4 (2018), 123-150. Février, Paul-Albert. “Quelques remarques sur troubles et résistances dans le Maghreb romain.” CT 29 (1981), 23-40. Fine, Steven and Rutgers, Leonard V. “New Light on Judaism in Asia Minor During Late Antiquity: Two Recently Identified Inscribed Menorahs.” JSQ 3 (1996), 1-23.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Fiorelli, Giuseppe. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Medagliere. Vol. 2, Part 1 (Napoli: Stab. Tip. in S.ta Teresa, 1870). First, Mitchell. “What Motivated Antiochus to Issue his Decrees against the Jews?” Hakirah 16 (2013), 193-211. Flusin, Bernard. “L’esplanade du Temple à l’arrivée des Arabes, d’après deux récits byzantins.” In Bayt al-Maqdis: ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem. Part One. Eds. Julian Raby and Jeremy Johns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 17-31. Follet, Simone. “Hadrian ktistès kai oikistès: lexicographie et realia.” In La langue et les textes en grec ancien: actes du colloque Pierre Chantraine, Grenoble 5-8 Septembre 1989. Eds. Francoise Létoublon and Pierre Chantraine (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1992), 241-254. Fredriksen, Paula and Irshai, Oded. “Christian Anti-Judaism: Polemics and Policies.” CHJ 4. Ed. Steven Katz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 977-1034. Frere, Sheppard. Britannia: a History of Roman Britain (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967). Freyne, Sean. Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 BCE to 135 CE: a Study of Second Temple Judaism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980). Frézouls, Edmond. “Les Baquates et la province romaine de Tingitane.” BAM 2 (1957), 65-116. Friedheim, Emmanuel. “The Role of the Roman Army in the Spread of Paganism in Judea and Samaria after the Great Revolt.” JSRS 9. Ed. Ya’akov Eshel (2000), 201-218. (Hebrew). Friedheim, Emmanuel. “The Religious and Cultural World of Aelia Capitolina: a New Perspective.” Archív Orientálni 75 (2007), 125152. Friedman, Mark. “Jewish Pilgrimage after the Destruction of the Second Temple.” In City of the Great King. Jerusalem from David to the Present. Ed. Rosovsky Nitza (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996), 136-146. Gaden, Anne. “Structure et portée historique de la Vie d’Hadrien dans l’Histoire Auguste.” Ktema 1 (1976), 129-144. Gambash, Gil. Rome and Provincial Resistance (New York: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group, 2015). Gambash, Gil and Yasur-Landau, Assaf. “‘Governor of Judea and Syria’: a New Dedication from Dor to Gargilius Antiquus.” ZPE 205 (2018), 158-164. Geiger, Joseph. “The Ban on Circumcision and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.” Zion 41 (1976), 139-147. (Hebrew) Geiger, Joseph. “The Bar-Kokhba Revolt: the Greek Point of View.” Historia 65 (2016), 497-519.

192

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Gergel, Richard A. “Agora S166 and Related Works: the Iconography, Typology and Interpretation of the Eastern Hadrianic Breastplate Type.” In Charis: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr. Ed. Anne P. Chapin, Hesperia Supplements. Vol. 33 (Princeton, N.J.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2004), 371-409. Germer Durand, Joseph. “Aelia Capitolina.” RBi 1, 3 (1892), 369-387. Geva, Hillel. “Jerusalem, the Roman Period.” In New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 2. Ed. Ephraim Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 758-767. Geva, Hillel. “The Tenth Roman Legion Did Camp on the Southwest Hill.” Cathedra 73 (1994), 181-186. (Hebrew) Geva, Hillel. “Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: a Minimalist View.” TA 41 (2014), 131-160. Gibson, Shimon and Nagorsky, Alla. “On the So-Called Head of Hadrian and a Hypothetical Roman Triumphal Arch on the North Side of Jerusalem.” In Arise, Walk through the Land. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Land of Israel in Memory of Yizhar Hirschfeld on the Tenth Anniversary of his Demise. Eds. Joseph Patrich et al. (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 2016), 149*-172*. Gichon, Mordechai. “New Insights into the Bar Kokhba War and a Reappraisal of Dio Cassius 69.12–13.” JQR 77 (1986), 15-43. Giuliano, Antonio. “Un palinsesto su marmo.” Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma 7 (1993), 5-14. Giurescu, Dinu C. and Fischer-Galaţi, Stephen. Romania: a Historic Perspective (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1998). Golan, David. “Hadrian’s Decision to Supplant ‘Jerusalem’ by ‘Aelia Capitolina’.” Historia 35 (1986), 226-239. Golan, David. “Judaei in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae.” Latomus 47 (1988), 318-339. Goldfus, Haim and Arubas, Benny. “The Legio X Fretensis Kilnworks at the Jerusalem International Convention Center.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018. Ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2019), 184-194. Goodblatt, David. “The Jews of Eretz Israel in the Years 70-132.” In Judea and Rome: the Jewish Revolts. Ed. Uriel Rappaport (Jerusalem: Am Oved, 1983), 155-184. (Hebrew) Goodman, Martin. “Jewish Writings under Gentile Pseudonyms.” In Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.- A.D. 135). Eds. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar. Vol. 3, Part 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 618-700. Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of the Bar-Kokhba War.” In The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 23-29.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews.” Past & Present 182 (2004), 3-29. Goodman, Martin. Rome and Jerusalem: the Clash of Ancient Civilizations (New York: A.A. Knopf, 2007). Gorin-Rosen, Yael. “Glass Finds.” In Jerusalem. Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 3: The Roman and Byzantine Periods: Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts. Eds. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn, IAA Reports no. 67 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2021), 27-67. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Grant, Robert M. “Eusebius, Josephus and the Fate of the Jews.” SBLSP 2 (1979), 69-86. Grant, Robert M. Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980). Grant, Robert M. “Eusebius and Imperial Propaganda.” In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Leiden: E.J Brill, 1992), 658-683. Gray, William D. “A Political Ideal of the Emperor Hadrian.” ARAHA 1 (1914), 115-124. Gray, William D. “The Founding of Aelia Capitolina and the Chronology of the Jewish War under Hadrian.” AJSL 39 (1923), 248-256. Gregorovius, Ferdinand. “Die Gründung der römischen Colonie Aelia Capitolina.” In SBAW 3 (1883), 477-508. Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Der Kaiser Hadrian: Gemälde der römisch-hellenischen Welt zu seiner Zeit (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1884). Grüll, Tibor. “A Roman Triumphal Arch on the Temple Mount?” Minerva (2007), 5. Gruen, Erich S. “Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews.” In Erich S. Gruen, The Construct of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism: Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History, Deuterocanonical Cognate Literature Studies 29 (Berlin/Boston: Walter De Gruyter, 2016), 238264. Gruen, Erich S. “Jewish Voices on Rome and Roman Imperialism.” In The Middle Maccabees: Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Eds. Andrea M. Berlin and Paul J. Kosmin, Archaeological and Biblical Studies 28 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021), 379-390. Gülbay, Onür. “Ein neuer Hausaltar aus Metropolis für Hadrian mit den Epitheten Olympios und Zeus Soter Augustus.” Phaselis 4 (2018), 231237. Gutsfeld, Andreas. Römische Herrschaft und einheimischer Widerstand in Nordafrika: Militärische Auseinandersetzungen Roms mit den Nomaden (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1989).

194

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Hadas Lebel, Mireille. Jerusalem against Rome (Leuven: Peeters, 2006). Halfmann, Helmut. Itinera Principum: Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1986). Harris, Rendel. “Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem.” HThR 19 (1926), 199-206. Harris, William V. “Roman Expansion in the West.” CAH, 2nd ed. Vol. 8 (1989), 107-162. Hazel, Johannessen. The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Hendin, David. Guide to Biblical Coins (New York: Amphora Books, 1987). Hengel, Martin. “Hadrians Politik gegenüber Juden und Christen.” JANES 16-17 (1987), 153-182. Hengel, Martin. Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften. Vol. 1 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996). Herr, Moshe David. “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries.” In Studies in Aggadah and FolkLiterature. Eds. Joseph Heinemann and Dov Noy, Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (Jerusalem: at the Magnes Press, the Hebrew University, 1971), 123-150. Herr, Moshe David. “Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Days.” SH 23 (1972), 85-125. Herr, Moshe David. “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba War.” Zion 43 (1978), 1-11. (Hebrew) Holder, Paul. “Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian.” In Documenting the Roman Army: Essays in Honor of Margaret Roxan. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, No. 81 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 101-145. Hollerich, Michael J. “Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First ‘Court Theologian’.” Church History 59 (1990), 309-325. Hollerich, Michael J. “Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture.” In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, Studia Post-Biblica 42 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 585-615. Hollerich, Michael. “Eusebius.” NCHB 1 (2013), 629-652. Holum, Kenneth G. “Hadrian and Caesarea: An Episode in the Romanization of Palestine.” Ancient World 23 (1992), 51-61. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of High Priest and Taxes: the Books of the Maccabees and the Judaean Rebellion against Antiochus IV (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2014). Horbury, William. Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Hose, Martin. “Cassius Dio: a Senator and Historian in the Age of Anxiety.” In A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Ed. John

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

Marincola. Vol. 2 (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 461467. Howgego, Christopher J. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire (London: Royal Numismatic Society, 1985), 86-90. Hunt, Edward D. Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 312-460 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982). Inowlocki, Sabrina. “The Reception of Philo’s ‘Legatio ad Gaium’ in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Works.” SPA 16 (2004), 30-49. Inowlocki, Sabrina. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation technique in an Apologetic Context (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Inowlocki, Sabrina. “Eusebius’ Appropriation of Moses in an Apologetic Context.” In Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. Eds. Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007), 241255. Iricinschi, Eduard. “Good Hebrew, Bad Hebrew: Christians as Triton Genos in Eusebius’ Apologetic Writings.” In Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical and Theological Issues. Eds. Sabrina Inowlocki et al. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2011), 69-86. Irshai, Oded. “Constantine and the Jews: the Prohibition Against Entering Jerusalem: History and Historiography.” Zion 65 (1995), 129-178. (Hebrew) Irshai, Oded. “Jews and Judaism in Early Church Historiography: the Case of Eusebius of Caesarea (Preliminary Observations and Examples).” In Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Eds. Robert Bonfil et al. (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2012), 799-828. Isaac, Benjamin. “Milestones in Judaea: from Vespasian to Constantine” [1978]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), 48-75. Isaac, Benjamin and Roll, Israel. “Judaea in the Early Years of Hadrian’s Reign” [1979]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998a), 182-197. Isaac, Benjamin and Roll, Israel. “Legio II Traiana in Judaea.” [1979a]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998b), 198-207. Isaac, Benjamin H. “Roman Colonies in Judaea: the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” [1980-81]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998c), 87-111. Isaac, Benjamin and Roll, Israel. “Legio II Traiana in Judaea – a Reply.” [1982]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998d), 208-210. Isaac, Benjamin and Roll, Israel. Roman Roads in Judaea. Vol. 1. The Legio– Scythopolis Road. BAR International Series 141 (Oxford: BAR, 1982).

196

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Isaac, Benjamin. “Cassius Dio on the Revolt of Bar Kokhba.” [1983-4]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998e), 211-256. Isaac Benjamin, “Bandits in Judaea and Arabia.” [1984]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998f), 122-158. Isaac, Benjamin and Oppenheimer, Aharon. “The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship.” [1985]. Repr. in Isaac, Benjamin. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998g), 220-256. Isaac, Benjamin. The Limits of Empire. The Roman Army in the East (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Isaac, Benjamin. “Inscriptions from Jerusalem after the First Revolt.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Eds. Yoram Tsafrir and Shmuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, 1999), 167-180. (Hebrew). Isaac, Benjamin. “Roman Religious Policy and the Bar Kokhba War.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 37-54. Isaac, Benjamin. “Roman Victory Displayed: Symbols, Allegories, Personifications.” In The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Eds. Yaron Z. Eliav et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 575-604. Isaac, Benjamin. “Jerusalem. An Introduction.” In Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae: a Multi-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad. Vol. 1. Jerusalem. Part 1. Eds. Hannah M. Cotton et al. (Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2010), 1-37. Isaac Benjamin. “Caesarea. Introduction.” In Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/ Palestinae: a Multi-Lingual Corpus of the Inscriptions from Alexander to Muhammad. Vol. 2. Caesarea and the Middle Coast. Eds. Walter Ameling et al. (Berlin/Boston: Walter De Gruyter, 2011), 17-35. Isaac, Benjamin. “Roman Roads, Physical Remains, Organization and Development.” SCI 34 (2015), 41-48. Isaac, Benjamin. “Caesarea-on-the-Sea and Aelia Capitolina: Two Ambiguous Roman Colonies.” In L’héritage Grec des colonies Romaines d’Orient. Interactions culturelles dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain. Ed. Cédric Brélaz (Paris: Éditions De Boccard, 2017), 331-343. Jacobs, Andrew S. “Review of Jörg Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1990).” CH 70 (2001), 558560. Jarret, Michael G. “An Unnecessary War.” Britannia 7 (1976), 145-151. Jones, Arnold H.M. “The Urbanization of Palestine.” JRS 21 (1931), 78-85.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

Jones, Christopher P. The Roman World of Dio Chrsostom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Jones, Christopher P. “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos.” JHS 113 (1993), 149-152. Jones, Christopher P. “A Letter of Hadrian to Naryka (Eastern Locris).” JRA 19 (2006), 151-162. Jones, Christopher P. “Three New Letters of the Emperor Hadrian.” ZPE 161 (2007), 145-156. Jones, Christopher P. “A Petition to Hadrian of 129 CE.” Chiron 39 (2009), 445-461. Jones, G.D.B. and Little, J.H. “Coastal Settlement in Cyrenaica.” JRS 61 (1971), 64-79. Kadman, Leo. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium I) (Jerusalem: The Universitas-Publishers, 1956). Kannengiesser, Charles. “Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist.” In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 435-466. Katsnelson, Natalya. “Early Roman Glass Vessels from Judea – Locally Produced Glass? A Preliminary Report.” AIHV, Annales of the 17th Congress, Antwerp 2006. Eds. K. Janssens et al. (Antwerp: University Press Antwerp, 2009), 163-169. Kennedy, David L. “Legio VI Ferrata: the Annexation and Early Garrison of Arabia.” HSPh 84 (1980), 283-309. Keppie, Lawrence J.F. “From Legionary Fortress to Military Colony: Veterans on the Roman Frontiers.” In Lawrence Keppie, Legions and Veterans: Roman Army Papers 1971-2000 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2000), 301-316. Keppie, Lawrence J.F. “The Legionary Garrison of Judaea under Hadrian.” In Lawrence Keppie, Legions and Veterans: Roman Army Papers 1971– 2000 (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2000a), 859-864. Kindler, Arie. The Coins of Tiberias (Tiberias: Tiberias Hot Springs Co. Ltd., 1961). Kindler, Arie. “Numismatic Documentation of Hadrian’s Visit in Eretz Israel.” Museum Haaretz Yearbook 17/18 (1975), 61-67. (Hebrew) Kindler, Arie. “Die palästinensischen Städtemünzen im 2. Jh. n. Chr. und der Bar Kochba-Krieg.” In Die Münze: Bild – Botschaft – Bedeutung. Festschrift für Maria R. Alföldi. Eds. Hans-Christoph Noeske and Helmut Schubert (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991), 283-312. Kindler, Arie. “Was Aelia Capitolina Founded before or after the Outbreak of the Bar Kokhba War? A Numismatic Evidence.” INR 14 (20002002), 176-179. Kissel, Theodor. “Road-Building as a munus publicum.” In The Roman Army and the Economy. Ed. Paul Erdkamp (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2002), 127-160.

198

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Kloner, Amos. “Judaean Subterranean Hideways – from the time of Bar Kokhba.” Cathedra 1 (1982), 4-23. (Hebrew) Kloner, Amos and Zissu, Boaz. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi – The Israel Exploration Society, 2003). Kloner, Amos; Klein, Eitan; and Zissu, Boaz. “The Rural Hinterland (territorium) of Aelia Capitolina.” In Roman Jerusalem: A New Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017), 131-141. Kloner, Amos and Bar-Nathan, Rachel. “The Eastern ‘Cardo’ of Aelia Capitolina.” In Roman Jerusalem: a New old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017a), 51-64. Kofsky, Arieh. “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Christian-Jewish Polemic.” In Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews. Eds. Ora Limor and Guy Stroumsa, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 10 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), 59-83. Kotsonas, Antonis. “Greek and Roman Knossos: the Pioneering Investigations of Minos Kalokairinos.” ABSA 3(1) (2016), 299-324. Kreitzer, Larry J. “The Personification of Judaea. Illustrations of the Hadrian Travel Sestertii.” ZNTW 80 (1989), 278-279. Kreitzer, Larry J. “The Wandering Emperor.” In Larry Kreitzer, Striking New Images. Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 146-186. Kreitzer, Larry J. “The Roman Imperial Adventus Coinage of Hadrian and the Parousia of Christ.” In Larry Kreitzer, Striking New Images. Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996a), 212-219. Kubitschek, Wilhelm. Zur Geschichte von Städten des römischen Kaiserreiches, Part 1 (Wien: In Kommission bei A. Holder, 1916). Kulikowski, Michael. “Marius Maximus in Ammianus and the Historia Augusta.” CQ 57/1 (2007), 244-256. Kushnir-Stein, Alla. Studies in Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Palestinina Coinage under the Principate (Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1990). (Hebrew) Kushnir-Stein, Alla. “City-Eras on Palestinian Coinage.” In Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Eds. Cristopher Howgego et al. (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 157-161. Kushnir-Stein, Alla. “Reflections of Religious Sensitivity on Palestinian City Coinage.” INR (2008), 125-136. Labbé, Gilbert. L’affirmation de la puissance romaine en Judée: 63 a.C.136 p.C. (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2012).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

Le Glay, Marcel. “Hadrien et l’Asklépieion de Pergame.” BCH 100 (1976), 347-372. Lehmann, Clayton M. and Holum, Kenneth G. The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, Excavation Reports. Vol. V: The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima (Boston, MA: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 2000). Lepper, Frank A. Trajan’s Parthian War (London: Oxford University Press, 1948). Levick, Barbara M. “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage.” Antichthon 16 (1982), 104-116. Lewis, R.G. “Imperial Autobiography, Augustus to Hadrian.” ANRW 2, 34, 1 (1993), 629-706. Lieberman, Saul. “The Martyrs of Caesarea.” JQR 36 (1946), 239-253. Lintott, Andrew. Juridical Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Lintott, Andrew. “The Roman Empire and its Problems in the Late Second Century.” CAH, 2nd ed. Vol. 9 (1995), 16-39. MacCormack, Sabine G. Art and Ceremonial in Late Antiquity (Berkely/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1981). MacKendrick, Paul L. The Dacian Stones Speak (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975). MacMullen, Ramsay. “Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces.” HSPh 64 (1959), 207-235. Madsen, Jesper Majbom. Cassius Dio (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019). Magness. Jodi. “The North Wall of Aelia Capitolina.” In The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond. Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer. Ed. Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisebrauns, 2000), 328-339. Magness, Jodi. “In the Footsteps of the Tenth Roman Legion in Judea.” In The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. Eds. A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman (London/New York: Routledge, 2002), 189-212. Magness, Jodi. “The Roman Legionary Pottery.” In Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’Uma). A Settlement of the Late First to Second Temple Period, the Tenth Legion’s Kilnworks, and a Byzantine Monastic Complex. The Pottery and Other Finds. Eds. Benny Arubas and Haim Goldfus (Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2005), 69-191. Magness, Jodi. “Aelia Capitolina: a Review of Some Current Debates about Hadrianic Jerusalem.” In Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archeaological Research in the Holy City. Eds. Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 313-324. Malitz, Jürgen. “Rom, Athen und Jerusalem: Kaiser Hadrian auf Reisen.” In Von den Olympischen Spielen bis zur Potsdamer Konferenz. Standard-

200

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

themen des Geschichtsunterrichts Forschungsnah. Eds. Waltraud Schreiber and Carola Gruner (Neuried: Ars Una, 2006), 125-162. Mann, John C. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlements during the Principate (London: Published by the Institute of Archaeology, 1983). Mantel, Hugo. “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” JQR 68 (1967/8), 224-242; 274-296. Maraval, Pierre. Eusèbe de Césarée, la théologie politique de l’empire chrétien: louanges de Constantin (Triakontaétérikos) (Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 2001). Marciak, Michal. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Jews.” PJBR 5/1 (2006), 61-74. Mattern, Susan P. Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1999). Mattingly, Harold. “Some Historical Coins of Hadrian.” JRS 15 (1925), 209-222. Mattingly, Harold and Sydenham, Edward A. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 2, Vespasian to Hadrian (London: Spink & Son, 1968). Mazar, Benjamin. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem near the Temple Mount: Preliminary Report of the Second and Third Seasons 1969–1970 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University/ Israel Exploration Society, 1971). Mazar, Eilat. “The Camp of the Tenth Roman Legion at the Foot of the South-West Corner of the Temple Mount Enclosure Wall in Jerusalem.” In New Studies on Jerusalem. Vol. 5. Eds. Avraham Faust and Eial Baruch (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1999), 52-67. (Hebrew) Mazar, Eilat. “Hadrian’s Legion Encamped on the Temple Mount.” BArch.R 32/6 (2006), 53-58, 82-83. Mazar, Eilat. “Introduction: The Late Roman Period in the Temple Mount Excavations.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 19681978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 1-8. Mazar, Eilat. “The Bakery in Area VII.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968-1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Ed. Eilat Mazar. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011a), 145-183. Mazor, Gabriel. “Introduction.” In Nysa-Scythopolis: The Caesareum and the Odeum. Eds. Gabriel Mazor and Arfan Najjar. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, no. 33 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2007), 1-14. Mazor, Gaby. “Concerning the Urban Plan of Aelia Capitolina: Colonnaded Streets, Monumental Arches and City Gates.” EIAHGS 28 (2007a), 116-124. (Hebrew)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

Mazor, Gabriel. “Imperial Cult in the Decapolis: Nysa-Scythopolis as a Test Case.” In Viewing Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology: VeHinnei Rachel – Essays in Honor of Rachel Hachlili. Eds. Ann E. Killebrew and Gabriele Fassbeck (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2016), 355-383. Mazor, Gabriel. “Monumental Arches and City Gates in ‘Aelia Capitolina’: an Urban Appraisal.” In Roman Jerusalem: a New-Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017), 73-81. Meckler, Michael. “The Beginning of the Historia Augusta.” Historia 45/3 (1996), 364-375. Mehlman, Betsy. Money, Power and Pride in the Second Jewish Revolt against the Romans (132-136): a Conceptual Analysis. Thesis for M.A. Degree (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014). Mendels, Doron. “The Use of Josephus by Eusebius in his ‘Ecclesiastical History’.” In Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Amsterdam 2000. Ed. Jürgen U. Kalms (Münster: Lit, 2001), 295-303. Merten, Elke. “Die Adoption Hadrians.” In Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub: zum 65. Geburstag am 18. Oktober 1977. Eds. Adolf Lippold et al. (Bonn: R. Habelt, 1977), 247-259. Meshorer, Ya’akov. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (translated from the Hebrew by I.H. Levine; Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1967). Meshorer, Ya’akov. “Sepphoris and Rome.” In Greek Numismatics and Archeology. Essays in honor of Margaret Thompson. Eds. Otto Morkholm and Nancy M. Waggoner (Wetteren: Éditions NR, 1979), 163165. Meshorer, Ya’akov. “A Hoard in the Region of Hebron.” In The Bar-Kokhva Revolt. Ed. Aharon Oppenheimer (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, 1980), 69-70. (Hebrew) Meshorer, Ya’akov. City Coins of Eretz Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1985). Meshorer, Ya’akov. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989). Meshorer, Ya’akov. Coins of the Holy Land: the Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum. Vol. 1 (New York: American Numismatic Society, 2013). Meyers, Eric M. “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Ed. Lee I. Levine (New York/Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminar of America, 1992), 321-338. Meyers, Eric M. “Aspects of Roman Sepphoris in the Light of Recent Archaeology.” In Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents. Eds. Frédérik Manns and E. Alliata (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1993), 29-36.

202

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Meyers, Eric M.; Hendin, David; and Meyers, Carol L. “Further Reflections on Sepphoris and Rome.” EIAHGS 31 (2015), Ehud Netzer Volume, 132*-140*. Mignon, Jean-Marc; Lavergne, David; and Rossignol, Benoît. “Un nouveau cursus sénatorial de l’époque de Trajan et d’Hadrien découvert à Vaison-la-Romaine.” CCG 24 (2013), 294. Mildenberg, Leo. “Bar Kokhba Coins and Documents.” HSPh 84 (1980), 311-335. Mildenberg, Leo. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War (Aarau/Frakfurt am Main/Salzburg: Verlag Sauerländer, 1984). Millar, Fergus. A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). Millar, Fergus. The Roman East 31 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). Millar, Fergus. “The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: a Study of Cultural Relations.” In Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History. Proceedings of a Colloquium at Tvärminne, 2-3 October 1987. Eds. Heikki Solin and Mika Kajava (Helsinki: Finnish Society of Science and Letters, 1990). Repr. in Millar, Fergus. The Greek World, the Jews and the East. Vol. 3. Eds. Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 164222. Misgav, Haggai. “Two-Faced Hadrian.” Segula 36 (2017), 18-31. Mitchell, Stephen. “Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Provinces.” HSPh 91 (1987), 333-365. Mócsy, András. Pannonia and Upper Moesia: a History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire (London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974). Mols, Stephan. “The Cult of Roma Aeterna in Hadrian’s Politics.” In The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Eds. Lukas de Blois et al. (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2003), 458-465. Mor, Menachem. The Second Jewish Revolt: the Bar Kokhba War, 132-136 CE (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2016). Morkholm, Otto. “Antiochus IV.” CHJ 2 (1989), 278-291. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “The Location of the Capitol in Aelia Capitolina.” RBi 101/3 (1994), 407-415. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “Where Was the Capitol in Roman Jerusalem?” Bibl.R 13 (1997), 22-29. Nagar, Yossi. “Human Skeletal Remains from Late Roman Tombs on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem.” ‘Atiqot 80 (2015), 73-79. Németh, Margit. “Roman Military Camps in Aquincum.” In La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano: Atti del Convegno Internazionale “La Pannonia e l’Impero Romano” (Roma, 13-16 gennaio 1994). Ed. Gábor Hajnóczi (Milano: Electa, 1995), 139-152.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

Newman, Hillel I. “The Temple Mount of Jerusalem and the Capitolium of Aelia Capitolina.” In Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honor of Leah Di Segni. Eds. Giovanni C. Bottini et al., Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 54 (Milano: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014), 35-42. Niesiolowski-Spanò, Lukasz. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Jews: a Reassessment.” In History, Archaeology and the Bible Forty Years after ‘Historicity’. Eds. Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson (London/New York: Routledge, 2016), 130-140. Onur, Gülbay, “Ein neuer Hausaltar aus Metropolis für Hadrian mit den Epitheten Olympios und Zeus Soter Augustus.” Phaselis IV (2018), 231237. Oppenheimer, Aharon. Galilee in the Mishnaic Period (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1991). (Hebrew) Oppenheimer, Aharon. “The Ban on Cicrumcision as a Cause of the Revolt: a Reconsideration.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish revolt against Rome. Ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 55-69. Oppenheimer, Aharon. “Holy Congregation in Jerusalem.” EJ 9 (2007), 498-499. Ostrowski, Janusz. Les personnifications des provinces dans l’art romain (Warsaw: Comer, 1990). Ouahnouna, Brigitte. “Groundstone Objects.” In Jerusalem. Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 3: The Roman and Byzantine Periods: Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts. Ed. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn, IAA Reports no. 67 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2021), 125-127. Paget, James C. The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994). Patrich, Joseph. “On the Lost Circus of Aelia Capitolina.” SCI 21 (2002), 173-188. Patrich, Joseph. “On the Proclamation of Caesarea as a Roman Colony.” In Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima – Caput Iudaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae. Ed. Joseph Patrich (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011), 71-90. Peleg-Barkat, Orit. “The Roman Marble Sculptures from the Temple Mount Excavations.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968– 1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 305-317. Perale, Marco. “From Egypt to Constantinople: a Pilgrimage Route in a Forgotten Late Antiquity Itinerary (SB XXVI 16666607)?” ZPE 199 (2016), 155-169.

204

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Perowne, Steward. Hadrian (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1960). Petersen, Leiva. “Lusius Quietus. Ein Reitergeneral Trajans aus Mauretanien.” Altertum 14 (1968), 211-217. Piso, Ioan. “Zum Judenkrieg des Q. Marcius Turbo.” ZPE 187 (2013), 255262. Powell, Lindsay. The Bar Kokhba War AD 132-136 : the Last Jewish Revolt against Imperial Rome (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017). Prause, Gerhard. Spuren der Geschichte: mit Archaeologen auf grossen Grabungen (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1988). Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 74 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998). Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. “L. Tettius Crescens’ ‘Expeditio Iudaeae’.” ZPE 133 (2000), 256-258. Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Leuven: Peeters, 2005). Rabello, Alfredo M. “The Edicts on Circumcision as a Factor in the BarKokhva Revolt.” In The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach. Eds. Aharon Oppenheimer and Uriel Rappaport (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984), 27-46. (Hebrew) Rabello, Alfredo M. “The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of Bar-Kokhba’s Rebellion.” ILR 29 (1995), 176-214. Rachet, Marguerite. Rome et les Berbères. Un problème militaire d’Auguste à Dioclétien. Collection Latomus 110 (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970). Rakob, Friedrich. “The Making of Augustan Carthage.” In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations and Failures. Proceedings of a Conference Held at the American Academy in Rome to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Excavations at Cosa. Eds. Elizabeth Fentress et al. (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000), 73-82. Raubitschek, Antony E. “Hadrian as the Son of Zeus Eleutherios.” AJA 49/2 (1945), 128-133. Reddé, Michel. “Le Marins.” In Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Gedenkschrift für Erich Birley. Ed. Géza Alföldi et al. (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 2000), 179-189. Reuven, Peretz. “A Comparative Analysis of the Bathhouse Plan.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Ed. Eilat Mazar. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 119-129. Ritti, Tullia. “Documenti adrianei da Hierapolis di Frigia: le epistole di Adriano alla città.” In L’Hellénisme d’époque romaine. Nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a.C.-IIIe s. p.C.): Actes du Colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert, Paris, 7-8 juillet 2000. Ed. Simone Follet (Paris: De Boccard, 2004), 297-340.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Ritti, Tullia. Hierapolis di Frigia IX: Storia e istituzioni di Hierapolis (Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2017), 382-389. Robertson, Anne S. Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet. Vol. 2 (London/Glasgow/New York: Oxford University Press, 1971). Rocco, Marco. I pretoriani. Soldati e cospiratori nel cuore di Roma (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2021). Romano, David G. “Post 146 B.C. Land Use in Corinth, and Planning of the Roman Colony of 44 B.C.” In The Corinthia in the Roman Period. Ed. Timothy E. Gregory (Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1993), 9-30. Romano, David G. “A Tale of Two Cities: Roman Colonies at Corinth. Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis, Colonia Iulia Flavia Augusta Corinthiensis.” In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the American Academy in Rome, to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Excavations at Cosa, 14-6 May, 1998. Ed. Elizabeth Fentress (Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000), 83-104. Romano, Irene B. “A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth: Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146-44 B.C.).” Hesperia 63 (1994), 57-104. Romeo, Ilaria. “The Panhellenion and Ethnic Identity in Hadrianic Greece.” CPh 97 (2002), 21-40. Rosenberger, Mary. The Rosenberger Israel Collection. Vol. 2. City-Coins of Palestine: Caesarea, Diospolis, Dora, Eleutheropolis, Gaba, Gaza and Joppa (Jerusalem: Offset ‘Yail’, 1975). Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. “The Pottery Assemblage from Locus 6032.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968-1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Ed. Eilat Mazar. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 195227. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Renate. “Tableware and Lamps from Roman Jerusalem: Selected Finds from the Eastern Cardo Dump.” In Roman Jerusalem: A New Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017), 23-40. Rutledge, Steven H. “The Roman Destruction of Sacred Sites.” Historia 56 (2007), 179-195. Safrai, Shmuel. “The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972), 62-78. Salway, Peter. Roman Britain (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1981). Sartre, Maurice. “Les colonies romaines dans le monde grec: Essai de synthèse.” Electrum 5 (2001), 111-152. Sartre, Maurice. The Middle East under Rome (Cambridge/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005).

206

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Sartre, Maurice. “Les élites juives de Judée d’une révolte à l’autre (v. 175 av.J.-C.-135 ap.J.-C.)” AUWA 28 (2005a), 33-44. Schäfer, Peter. “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” In Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann. Eds. Jacob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, the Hebrew University and Hebrew Union College Press, 1981), 74-94. Schäfer, Peter. Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand: Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981a). Schäfer, Peter. “Hadrian’s Policy in Judaea and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt: a Reassessment.” In A Tribute to G. Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Eds. Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 100 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 281-303. Schäfer, Peter. “The Bar Kochba Revolt and Circumcision: Historical Evidence and Modern Apologetics.” In Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistischrömischer Zeit. Ed. Aharon Oppenheimer (München: R. Oldenburg Verlag, 1999), 119-132. Schäfer, Peter (ed.). The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003). Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World: the Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (London/New York: Routledge, 2003a). Schürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus. Ed. Nahum N. Glatzer (New York: Schocken Books, 1961). Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Eds. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar. Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973). Schwartz, Daniel R. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem.” In Historical Perspectives: from the Hasmonean to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27-31.1.1999. Eds. David Goodblatt et al., Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 37 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001), 45-56. Schwartz, Jacques. “Remarques sur les voyages d’Hadrien.” BHAC 19791981 (Bonn, 1983), 291-301. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). Schwartz, Seth. “Political, Social and Economic Life in the Land of Israel, 66–c.235.” CHJ 4 (2006), 23-52. Seligman, Jon. “‘Absence of Evidence’ or ‘Evidence of Absence’: Where was Civilian Aelia Capitolina and was Jerusalem the Site of the Legionary Camp?” In Roman Jerusalem: a New-Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

Guy D. Stiebel (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017), 107-116. Shahar, Yuval. “Was There a Civilian Settlement in Jerusalem between the Two Jewish Revolts?” In New Studies on Jerusalem 12 (2006), 131-146. Shatzman, Israel. “The Integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire.” SCI 18 (1999), 49-84. Sherwin White, Adrian N. The Roman Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). Sigismund, Marcus. “Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic, Religious and Political Identity in First and Second Centuries CE.” In Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Eds. Jürgen Zangenberg et al. (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007), 315-336. Sigman, Marlene C. “The Romans and the Indigenous Tribes of Mauretania Tingitana.” Historia 26 (1977), 415-439. Sijpesteijn, Pieter J. “A New Document concerning Hadrian’s Visit to Egypt.” Historia 18 (1969), 109-118. Singh, Devin. “Eusebius as Political Theologian: the Legend Continues.” HThR 108 (2015), 129-154. Sion, Ofer and Rapuano, Yehudah. “A Pool from the Period of Aelia Capitolina in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018. Ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2019), 169-172. Sklar-Parnes, Deborah A., Rapuano, Yehudah and Bar-Nathan, Rachel. “Excavations in Northeast Jerusalem: A Jewish Site in Between the Revolts.” New Studies on Jerusalem 10 (2004), 35*-41*. Smallwood, E. Mary. “Palestine c. A.D. 115-118.” Historia 11 (1962), 500-510. Smallwood, E. Mary. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge: at the University Press, 1966). Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews under Roman Rule: from Pompey to Diocletian: a Study in Political Relations (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976). Sotgiu, Giovanna. “L’epigrafia latina in Sardegna dopo il C.I.L. X e l’E.E. VIII,” ANRW II, 11, 1 (1988), 552-739. Spawforth, Antony J. and Walker, Susan. “The World of the Panhellenion. I. Athens and Eleusis.” JRS 75 (1985), 78-104. Speidel, Michael P. “A Tile Stamp of Cohors I Thracum Milliaria from Hebron/Palestine.” ZPE 35 (1979), 170-172. Speller, Elizabeth. Following Hadrian: a Second-Century Journey through the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Spijkerman, Augustus. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1978). Stemberger, Günter. Die Römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983).

208

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Stemberger, Günter. “Rabbinic Sources for Historical Study.” In Idem, Judaica Minora. Vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2010), 216-230. Stemberger, Günter. “Die Verfolgung der Jüdischen Religion unter Hadrian: zwischen Wirklichkeit und Martyrologie.” SCI 33 (2014), 255268. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974). Vol. 2 (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980). Stiebel, Guy D. “The Whereabouts of the Xth Legion Camp and the Boundaries of Aelia Capitolina.” In New Studies on Jerusalem. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference. Eds. A. Faust and E. Baruch (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1999), 68-103. (Hebrew) Stiebel, Guy D. “A Military Die from the Bakery.” In The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968-1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume IV: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina. Ed. Eilat Mazar. Qedem 52 (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2011), 229-231. Stinespring, William F. “Hadrian in Palestine, 129/130 A.D.” JAOS 59/3 (1939), 360-365. Strack, Paul L. Untersuchungen zur Römischen Reichsprägung des Zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vol. 2: Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Hadrian (Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1933). Strobel, Karl. “Die Jahre 117 bis 119 n. Chr.: eine Krisenphase der römischen Herrschaft an der mittleren und unteren Donau.” In Studien zur alten Geschichte (FS. S. Lauffer). Eds. H. Kalcyk et al. Vol. 3 (Rome, 1986), 905-967 (non vidi). Strobel, Karl. Kaiser Traian. Eine Epoche der Weltgeschichte (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2010). Stroumsa, Guy G. “From Anti-Judaism to Antisemitism in Early Christianity?” In Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews. Eds. Ora Limor and Guy Stroumsa (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), 1-26. Sutherland, Carol H.V. “The Purpose of Roman Imperial Coin Types.” Revue numismatique 25 (1983), 73-82. Sydenham, Edward A. The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London: Spink, 1952; repr. New York: Arno Press, 1975). Syme, Ronald. “The Greeks under Roman Rule.” PMHS 72 (1957-60) = Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 2. Ed. Ernest Badian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 566-581. Syme, Ronald. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Syme, Ronald. “More Trouble about Turbo.” In BHAC 1979/81 (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1983), 303-319.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Syme, Ronald. “Guard Prefects of Trajan and Hadrian.” JRS 70 (1980) = Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 3. Ed. Anthony R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 1276-1302. Syme, Ronald. “Hadrian and the Vassal Princes.” Athenaeum 59 (1981) = Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 3. Ed. Anthony R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984a), 1436-1446. Syme, Ronald. Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Syme, Ronald. “Hadrian and the Senate.” In Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 4. Ed. Anthony R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 295324. Syme, Ronald. “Praesens the Friend of Hadrian.” In Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 5. Ed. Anthony R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988a), 563-578. Syme, Ronald. “Fictional History Old and New.” = Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 6. Ed. Anthony R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 157-181. Syme, Ronald, “Journey of Hadrian.” ZPE 73 (1988), 159-170 = Syme, Ronald. Roman Papers. Vol. 6. Ed. Anthony R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991a), 346-357. Syon, Danny. “Galilean Mints in the Early Roman Period: Politics, Economy and Ethnicity.” In Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 BC-135 CE. Papers Presented at the International Conference Hosted by Spink, 13th14th September 2010. Eds. David M. Jacobson and Nikos Kokkinos (London: Spink, 2012), 51-64. Tameanko, Marvin. “Hadrian and the Jews: a Relationship Shown on Ancient Coins.” The Shekel 32/6 (1999), 17-25. Tarn, William W. Hellenistic Civilization. 2nd ed. (London: E. Arnold & Co., 1930). Tcherikover, Victor A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1959). Tepper, Yotam. “The Roman Legionary Camp at Legio, Israel: Results of an Archaeological Survey and Observations on the Roman Military Presence at the Site.” In The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005). Eds. Ariel S. Lewin and Pietrina Pellegrini, BAR International Series 1717 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007), 57-71. Thornton, M.K. “Hadrian and his Reign.” ANRW II, 2 (1975), 432-476. Toynbee, Jocelyn M.C. The Hadrianic School: A Chapter in the History of Greek Art (Cambridge: University Press, 1934). Tsafrir, Yoram; Di Segni, Leah and Green, Judith. Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea Palaestina (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). Tsafrir, Yoram. “Jewish Pilgrimage in the Roman and Byzantine Periods.” Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie,

210

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Bonn, 22-28 September 1991. Vol. 1 (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1995), 369-376. Tsafrir, Yoram. “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina.” In The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638). Eds. Yoram Tsafrir and Shmuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1999), 115-166. (Hebrew) Tsafrir, Yoram. “Numismatics and the Foundation of Aelia Capitolina: a Critical Review.” In The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003), 31-36. Tsafrir, Yoram. “70-638: The Temple-less Mountain.” In Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Eds. Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2009), 73-99. Tucci, Pier Luigi. “Il tempio di Giove Capitolino e la sua influenza sui templi di età imperiale.” JRA 19 (2006), 386-392. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Old Testament Text of Eusebius: the Heritage of Origen.” In Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism. Eds. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 543-562. Ulrich, Jörg. Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden: Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1999). Urloiu, Radu. “Legio II Traiana Fortis and Judaea under Hadrian’s Reign.” Cogito 2 (2010), 110-126. Uziel, Joseph; Lieberman, Tehila; and Solomon, Avi. “Two years of Excavations beneath Wilson’s Arch: New Discoveries and Ponderings.” In New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region: Collected Papers 11 (2017), 239-261. (Hebrew) Van den Hoek, Annewies. “Review of Jörg Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999).” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000), 435-438. Vincent, L. Hugues. “Chronique: II – Les fouilles juives d’el-Hammam à Tibériade,” RBi 30 (1921), 434-443. Vout, Caroline. “Hadrian, Hellenism, and the Social History of Art.” Arion 18 (2010), 55-78. Walbank, Mary E.H. “The Foundation and Planning of Early Roman Corinth.” JRA 10 (1997), 95-130. Wallace, Lacey. “The Early Roman Horizon.” In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain. Eds. Martin Millett et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 117-133. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus.” JRS 76 (1986), 66-87. Walton, Francis R. “Religious Thought in the Age of Hadrian.” Numen IV/3 (1957), 165-170.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

Weikert, Christopher. Von Jerusalem zu Aelia Capitolina: Die römische Politik gegenüber den Juden von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit; Onn, Alexander; Kisilevitz, Shua; and Ouahnouna, Brigitte. “Layers of Ancient Jerusalem.” BArch.R 38/1 (2012), 37-47. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “Two Aspects of the Transformation of Jerusalem into the Roman Colony of Aelia Capitolina.” In Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honor of Leah Di Segni. Eds. Giovanni Claudio Bottini et al. (Milano: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2014), 43-61. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “The Foundation of Aelia Capitolina in Light of New Excavations along the Eastern Cardo.” IEJ 64 (2014a), 38-62. Weksler-Bdolah Shlomit. “The Tenth Legion’s Camp: Nonetheless on the Southwestern Hill.” In New Studies on Jerusalem, Collected Papers 20. Eds. Eyal Baruch and Avraham Faust (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Faculty of Jewish Studies, Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, 2014b), 219-238. (Hebrew) Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “The Role of the Temple Mount in the Layout of Aelia Capitolina: The Capitolium After All.” EIAHGS 3 (2015) Ehud Netzer Volume, 126-137. (Hebrew) Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit and Onn, Alexander. “Colonnaded Streets in ‘Aelia Capitolina’: New Evidence from Eastern ‘Cardo.’” In Roman Jerusalem: a New Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 105 (Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017), 11-22. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit and Onn, Alexander. “The Temple Mount at the time of Aelia Capitolina: New Evidence from the ‘Giant Viaduct.” In Roman Jerusalem: a New Old City. Eds. Gideon Avni and Guy D. Stiebel, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 105 (Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2017a), 83-95. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit and Onn, Alexander. “A First Temple Period Building and the Roman Eastern Cardo in the Western Wall Plaza.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Archaeological Discoveries, 1998-2018. Ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2019), 153168. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “Aelia Capitolina: The Roman Colony and Its Periphery.” In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Cologne/Bonn 22-26 May 2018. Judaea/Palaestina and Arabia: Cities and Hinterlands in Roman and Byzantine Times. Eds. Achim Lichtenberger et al. (Heidelberg: Propylaeum, 2019a), 81-93. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “Aelia Capitolina.” In Routledge Handbook on Jerusalem. Eds. Suleiman A. Mourad et al. (London/New York: Routledge, 2019b), 47-63.

212

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “The Eastern Cardo in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Strata XII-X).” In Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 1. The Roman and Byzantine Remains: Architecture and Stratigraphy. Eds. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn. IAA Reports, No. 63 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2019c), 29-88. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “The Cardo in Urban Context.” In Jerusalem Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 1. The Roman and Byzantine Remains: Architecture and Stratigraphy. Eds. Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah and Alexander Onn. IAA Reports, No. 63 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2019d), 195-208. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit and Di Segni, Leah. “A Latin Epitaph of a Soldier from Magen’s Excavations in Damascus Gate and the Burial Grounds of Jerusalem between 70 and 130 CE.” IEJ 70 (2020), 90-98. Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. Aelia Capitolina – Jerusalem in the Roman Period in Light of Archaeological Research (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2020). Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit and Onn, Alexander. Jerusalem. Western Wall Plaza Excavations. Vol. 3: The Roman and Byzantine Periods: Small Finds from the Roman Refuse Dump and Other Contexts. IAA Reports no. 67 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2021). Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit. “The Camp of the Legio X Fretensis and the Starting Point of Aelia Capitolina.” In Rome: an Empire of Many Nations: New Perspectives on Ethnic Diversity and Cultural Identity. Eds. Jonathan J. Price, Margalit Finkelberg and Yuval Shahar (Cambridge, UK/ New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 300-331. Welles, Charles B. “The Inscriptions.” In Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. Ed. Carl H. Kraeling (New Haven, Connecticut: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1938), 355-494. Wells, Jack. “Impiety in the Middle Republic: the Roman Response to Temple Plundering in Southern Italy.” CJ 105 (2010), 229-243. White, Ethan Doyle. “The New Cults of Antinous.” Nova Religio 20 (2016), 32-59. Whittaker, C. Richard. “Supplying the Army. Evidence from Vindolanda.” In The Roman Army and the Economy. Ed. Paul Erdkamp (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2002), 204-234. Willers, Dietrich. “The Redesigning of Athens under Hadrian.” In The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire: Papers from the Tenth British Museum Classical Colloquium (University of London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1989), 9. Willers, Dietrich. Hadrians panhellenisches Programm: archäologische Beiträge zur Neugestaltung Athens durch Hadrian. Antike Kunst 16 (Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst, 1990). Wiseman, James. “Corinth and Rome: 228 B.C.-A.D. 267.” ANRW II 7, 1 (1979), 438-548.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Witulski, Thomas. Kaiserkult in Kleinasien: die Entwicklung der kultischreligiösen Kaiserverehrung in der römischen Provinz Asia von Augustus bis Antoninus Pius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Witulski, Thomas. Apk 11 und der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand: eine zeitgeschichtliche Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2012). Yeger, David. “Jerusalem, Shu’fat: Final Report.” Hadashot Arkeologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 128 (2016), http://www.jstor.com/ stable/26679146 (accessed 9/03/2022). Zahrnt, Michael. “Vermeintliche kolonien des Kaisers Hadrian.” ZPE 71 (1988), 229-249. Zahrnt, Michael. “Antinoopolis in Ägypten: die hadrianische Gründung und ihre Privilegien in der neueren Forschung.” ANRW II, 10, 1 (1988a), 669-706. Zahrnt, Michael. “Verteilung und Charakter der hadrianischen Kolonien (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Aelia Capitolina).” In Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 2, 1984 und 3, 1987. Eds. Eckart Olshausen and Holger Sonnabend (Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt, 1991), 463-486. Zahrnt Michael. “Urbanitas gleich romanitas. Die Städtepolitik des Kaisers Traian.” In Traian: ein Kaiser Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit? Ed. Annette Nünnerich-Asmus (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2002), 51-72. Zahrnt Michael. “Hadrians ‘Provinzmünzen.” In Herrschen und Verwalten: der Alltag der römischen Administration in der hohen Kaiserzeit. Ed. R. Haensch (Köln: Böhlau, 2007), 195-212. Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1990). Ziosi, Francesco. “Sulle iscrizioni relative alla ricostruzione di Cirene dopo il ‘tumultus Iudaicus’ e sul loro contenuto.” ZPE 172 (2010), 239-248. Ziosi, Francesco. “‘He Will Bear the Name of a Sea’: Jewish Expectations of Hadrian and His Imperial Strategy before 130 CE.” In Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: the Interbellum 70-132 CE. Eds. Joshua Schwartz and Peter J. Tomson (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2018), 127-141. Zissu, Boaz; Klein, Eitan and Kloner, Amos. “Settlement Processes in the territorium of Roman Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina).” In XVIII CIAC: Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Eds. J.M. Alvarez et al. (Mérida: Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, 2014), 219-223. Zissu, Boaz and Eshel, Hanan. “Religious Aspects of the Bar Kokhba Revolt: the Founding of Aelia Capitolina on the Ruins of Jerusalem.” In The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome. Ed. Krzysztof Ulanowski. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 84 (Leiden/Boston: E.J. Brill, 2016), 387-405.

INDEXES SOURCES Coins Eshel and Zissu (2002), 171, no. 10 172, no. 11

26 26

IAA 120284 = Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 143 79 IAA 120300 = Bar-Nathan and Bijovsky (2018), 140 79 Meshorer (1985), 37, no. 93 Meshorer (1989), 70-71, no. 2

122 27

RIC I, 71, no. 125 RIC I, 73, no. 413 RIC I, 210, nos. 105-107 RIC I, 215, no. 153 RIC I, 216, no. 156 RIC I, 227, no. 16

132 134 134 134 134 135

RIC II, 249, no. 78 RIC II, 250, nos. 88-89 RIC II, 250-251, nos. 96-99 RIC II, 251, no. 105 RIC II, 258, nos. 214-215 RIC II, 258, nos. 216-221 RIC II, 267, no. 324 RIC II, 276, no. 447 RIC II, 276, no. 448 RIC II, 277, no. 459 RIC II, 278, no. 460 RIC II, 278, no. 463 RIC II, 278, nos. 470-473 RIC II, 279, no. 474 RIC II, 282, no. 547 RIC II, 283, no. 556 RIC II, 284, nos. 560-566 RIC II, 285, no. 585 RIC II, 288, no. 620 RIC II, 289, no. 642 RIC II, 338, no. 3

134 134 134 135 134 134 134 134 132, 134 135 135 135 135 135 134 134 134 134 134 134 86

RIC II, 339, no. 2 86 RIC II, 339, nos. 4; 6-8 87 RIC II, 340, nos. 9; 11; 12; 13, 14 87 RIC II, 341, nos. 17, 19, 21, 22 87 RIC II, 377, no. 322, 328, 329 138 RIC II, 378, no. 327 140 RIC II, 378, no. 329 141 RIC II, 405, no. 535 87 RIC II, 406, no. 540 87 RIC II, 407, no. 542 87 RIC II, 416, no. 594 136, 137 RIC II, 418, no. 603 136, 137 RIC II, 452, no. 878 120 RIC II, 454, no. 890 = Mildenberg (1984), 98, fig. 17 127 RIC II, 454, no. 893 = Tameanko (1999), 22 126 RIC II, 454, no. 894 = Tameanko (1999), 22 128 RIC II, 463, no. 938 141 RIC II, 463, nos. 940-942 138 RIC II, 464-465, nos. 943-951; 955 139, 140 RIC II, 464-465, nos. 947-949 141 RIC II, 464, nos. 943; 944-946 141 RIC II, 465, nos. 952-955 140 RIC II, 466, no. 956 138 RIC II, 466, no. 958 141 RIC II, 466, nos. 959-960 141 RIC II, 466, no. 961 139 RIC II, 467, nos. 962-966 141 RIC II, 484, nos. 943-944 120 RPC III, 1, nos. 509-510 RPC III, 1, no. 514 RPC III, 1, no. 3932 RPC III, 1, no. 3933 RPC III, 1, no. 3934 RPC III, 1, no. 3963

115 115 117 115 115 14

216

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

RPC III, 1, no. 5167 National Museum of Naples. Catalogo Fiorelli no. 8405 S. Moussaieff Collection, Lot 208

116 131 131

129 100 125 105 29

CIIP I, 2 (2012), no. 710 no. 715 no. 716 no. 717 no. 720 no. 755 no. 757 no. 760 no. 761 no. 771 no. 776

16 7 9 9 10 37 37 19 37 5 19

CIIP II (2011), no. 1262

123

CIL I, 2nd ed. 585 CIL III, 13589 = 14155 CIL VI, 5076 CIL VIII, 9663 = ILS 6882

40 98 31 93

Ecker and Cotton (2018-2019), 58 7 Papyri P. Rylands 189 PSI IX 102 = Smallwood (1966), no. 330 SB XXVI, 16607

149 149 162

Literary Sources Aelius Aristides, Orationes 27

Appianus, 12, 53

171

Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 16, 13, 9 160

Inscriptions AE 1904, no. 9 AE 1929, no. 167 AE 1994, no. 1781 = Di Segni (1994), 579-584 AE 2003, no. 1801 = CIIP II (2011), no. 1227 AE 2004, no. 1424 = SEG 2005, no. 1416 = Ritti (2017), 386

Apion, Aegyptiaca, apud: Jos., C. Ap., 2, 125 53

62

Aurelius Augustinus, De civ. Dei, 3, 7 171 Cicero, Tusc. disp., 3, 22.53 82 Pro Flacco, 28, 69 74, 102 Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geographica, 5, 15, 5 162 Dio Cassius, 37, 16, 5-17, 1 37, 17, 2-3 53, 19, 6 68, 32, 5, Exc.Val. 290 69, 1, 1-4 69, 2, 5 69, 3, 2 69, 5, 3 69, 11, 2 69, 12, 1 69, 12, 1-2 69, 14, 3 69, 17, 3 87, 6 D

48 48 41, 44 89, 100, 109 41, 85-86 43, 89, 100 142 119 42 14 23, 45, 174 42, 178 88 46

Epiphanius, On Weighs and Measures, ch. 14 31 Panarion, 30, 12 116, 120 Eusebius, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, 201 6 Dem. Ev 8, 3, 10-12 56 HE, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 2 1, 1, 3 2, 4-6 2, 10 2, 19-23, 26 3, 5, 3 3, 5-7 4, 2, 1 4, 2, 5 4, 6, 1-4

52 54 52 55 55 55 55 55 55 100 24, 56

INDEXES

4, 6, 3-4 5, 8 6, 7 7, 1 7, 3 9, 1, 2

16, 1 17, 8 19, 9-10 20, 1 22, 9-10

51, 77, 161 103 105 55 105 87

Eutrop. 8, 6, 2

95

Flavius Josephus, C. Ap., 2, 125 Bell., 7, 421

53 102

217

Hieronymus, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. Rudolf Helm, 2nd ed., Eusebius Werke VII = GCS 47 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956), 197 96 201 6 Historia Augusta, Hadr., 1, 1 42 4, 10 86 5, 1-2 90, 92, 95, 174 5, 8 92, 93, 103 6, 7 105 7, 1-2 43, 44, 88, 103 7, 2 89, 92 7, 3 88, 105 7, 6 136 7, 8-11 136 7, 9 88 9, 1-2 87 9, 3 89 10, 1 139 11, 2 95 12, 3 140 12, 7 92 13, 4 138 13, 6 117 14, 4 120

Mishnah Sotah, 9:14

102

Oracula Sibyllina, 5, 45-50

147

Pausanias, 1, 5, 5 2, 3, 5 8, 10, 2

60 62 62

Philo, Leg., 281-283

151

Plinius, Ep., 6, 22

104

Plutarch, Marcellus, 30

46

Seder Olam Rabbah, 30

101

Sibylline Oracles 5, 45-50

147

Suetonius, Aug., 93, 1

175

Tacitus, Agr., 16, 1 21 Ann., 1, 51 1, 59, 8 4, 32, 1 12, 32 14, 30 14, 31 Hist., 1, 2 4, 63 5, 5. 4 = Stern [1980], no. 281 Tosefta, Shabb., XV (XVI), 9 Xiphilinus – see Dio Cassius

NAMES Deities Aphrodite 4 Apis 175 Athena 169, 171 Bacchus 6

43 142 66 143 175

Capitoline Triad 12, 115 Demeter 62, 169 Dionysius 5, 63 Dioscuri 6 Fortuna 6 Hermes 113

160 143 171 160 88 160 171 160 91 160 152 146

218

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Hygieia 115 Isis 176 Juno 12, 14 Jupiter 5, 12, 15, 23, 154 Jupiter Capitolinus 6, 12, 12-14, 152 Kore 169 Mars 6 Memnon 176 Mercury 113 Minerva 12, 14 Neptune 66, 98, 99, 132 Nike 115, 116 Poseidon 115, 170 Poseidon the Lord of Horses 62 Sarapis 115 Tamfana 171 Tyche 115 Venus 6 Zeus 12, 62, 63, 115, 117, 122 Zeus/Baalshamin 120 Zeus the Hunter 64 Zeus Olympios 63, 165, 166

Emperors Antoninus Pius 5, 59, 93, 94, 115, 122, 135 Augustus 4, 10, 57, 63, 66, 69, 132, 134, 140, 174, 175 Caligula 55 Caracalla 91 Claudius 55, 70 Domitian 36, 97, 104, 133 Elagabalus 43 Gaius 4, 5 Galba 134 Hadrian see below, p. 223 Nero 65, 114 Nerva 13, 43 Septimius Severus 43, 158 Titus 4, 5, 133 Trajan 13, 21, 28, 29, 41, 44, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 85-88, 90, 94-96, 99, 100, 102-104, 107, 109, 112-114, 134, 135

Vespasian 1, 5, 13, 70, 71, 74, 102, 123, 133, 161 Vitellius 134 Personal Names Aelius Tuccuda 93, 94 Agrippa 66 Agrippa (King) 151 Amatius 37 Antinous 42, 123-124 Antiochus III 167 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 63, 146, 165167, 169 Aponius 37 Ariston of Pella 24, 49-51, 56 Aulus Cornelius Palma Frontonianus 42 Boudicca 160 Caninius 37 Casperius 37 Cassius Apronianus 41, 85 Decebalus 95 Decimus Velius Fidus 149 Euelpidius 123 Eutychios 102 Gaius Antonius 37 Gaius Avidius Nigrinus 43, 88, 89 Gaius Calpurnius Piso Crassus Frugi Licinianus 88 Gaius Flavius Fimbria 171 Gaius Julius Quadratus Bassus 94 Gaius Lucretius Gallus 169, 170 Gaius Popillius Laenas 166 Gaius Quinctius Certus Poblicius Marcellus 169 Gaius Suetonius Paulinus 171-172 Germanicus Julius Caesar 171 Gnaeus Minicius Faustinus Sextus Julius Severus 42, 128, 177 Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus 60, 74, 102, 125 Gregorius Ab’ûl-Faraj 103 Helius 123 Herod Agrippa 4, 55 Jerome 50 John Xiphilinus 45-48, 57

INDEXES

Julius Caesar 69 Julius Caesar Germanicus 171 Lucius Aquillius Florus 132 Lucius Cassius Caecinus 26 Lucius Cossonius Lucii filius Gallus Vecilius Crispinus Mansuanius Marcellinus Numisius Sabinus 105 Lucius Julius Ursus Servianus 88 Lucius Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus (known as Marius Maximus) 4345, 49, 86, 87, 91 Lucius Mummius 39, 81, 82, 159, 171 Lucius Neratius Priscus 88 Lucius Publilius Celsus 42 Lucius Staius Murcus 132 Lucius Tettius Crescens 100 Luke the Evangelist 50 Lusius Quietus 43, 88-90, 92, 100, 102103, 109, 147, 177 Manius Aquillius 132 Manius Laberius Maximus 88 Marcus Claudius Marcellus 169 Marcus Iunius Maximus 5, 86, 87 Marcus Paccius Silvanus Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus 105

219

Marcus Rutilius Lupus 90 Marcus Titius Lustricus Bruttanius 90, 103-105 Maximus the Confessor 49-50 Michael Syrus 103 Moses Khorenatsi 102 Origen Adamantius 50 Perseus 169 Phlegon 43 Pisistratus 63 Pompeia Plotina 41, 85, 86 Publius Acilius Attianus 41, 85, 88, 89 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius 70 Quintus Baebius Macer 88 Quintus Marcius Turbo 93, 104 Quintus Pompeius Falco 94, 96 Quintus Rammius Martialis 90 Quintus Tineius Rufus 168 Sutorius 37 Titus Flavius Clemens 50 Titus Haterius Nepos Atinas Probus Publicius Matenianus 96 Titus Pontius Sabinus 96

PLACES Acco 122 Achaia 104, 141 Aequum 128, 133 Aetolia 151 Africa 12, 63, 138 Ailabo 25 Aïn Schkour 93 Albania 63, 71 Alcantara 65 Alexandria 30, 79, 102, 116 Ammaus 71 Antalya 98 Antinoopolis 60 153 Antioch 61, 85, 119, 124 Apamea 119 Apollonia 61 Apollonia of Rhyndacos 167 Aquincum 158

Arabia 30, 104, 120, 139, 141, 158 Argos 62, 151 Armenia 87, 95, 100, 134 Ascalon 116, 124 Asia 63, 139, 141, 151, 176 Asia Minor 119 Assyria 87, 95 Athens 63, 66, 117, 175 Attica 151 Baiae 42 Banasa 93 Berenice 64 Berytus 2, 69 Bethlehem 5, 25 Beth-El 81 Beth Horon 10 Beth Leqitaia 81 Beth Safafa 81

220

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Binyanei Ha’uma 3 Bithynia 48, 61, 139, 141, 151 Boeotia 151, 169 Bostra 120, 158 Bouthrotos 70 Brescia 6 Britannia 89, 91, 95, 96, 141 Buthrotum 71 Caesarea Maritima 1, 2, 5, 10, 23, 70, 73, 105, 115, 116, 122, 123, 142, 145 Cagliari 100 Caledonia 95 Campania 91, 138 Camulodunum (Colchester) 158, 160 Caparbanaia 125 Caparcotna (Legio) 105-106, 108, 110, 121, 122 Capitolias 13 Cappadocia 142 Caria 63 Carmel 106, 122 Cartenna 93 Carthage 4, 10, 15, 69, 71, 170 Cilicia 41, 63, 85, 104, 151 Corinth 39, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 81, 82, 151, 161, 170 Cremna 121 Crete 97 Cyprus 74, 176 Cyrenaica 61, 74 Cyrene 121 Cyzicus 62, 117, 124 Dacia 87, 92-95, 100, 105, 107, 134, 141, 142, 159, 163 Dacia Inferior 94, 163 Dacia Superior 94, 163 Dacia Porolissensis 94, 158, 163 Dalmatia 12, 128, 133 Damascus 110, 119, 120 Danube 44 Daphne 61 Decapolis 13, 49, 120 Diospolis (Lod) 10 Dor 28, 105 Driana 64 Dura Europos 8, 20, 87

Dyrrhachium 70 Egypt 31, 60, 74, 90, 96 102, 106, 149, 151, 152, 176 Ein Geddi 150 Eleutheropolis (Beit Guvrin) 10 El-Jai Cave 26, 28 El-Manach 110 Emmaus 10, 81 En Carub 25 Ephesos 117, 124 Epidaurus 61 Europe 63, 151 Faventia 43 Fayum 60 Ferentium 6 Flavia Neapolis 129 Fragellae 171 Gaba 28, 116 Gabii 6 Galilee 24, 106, 145 Gallia 12, 139 Gallia Narbonensis 103 Gaza 26, 30, 31, 73, 116, 124 Gerasa 8, 28, 73, 116, 120, 124 Germania 12, 160, 163 Glevum (Gloucester) 158 Gortyna 98 Hadria 42 Hadriana 62 Hadriane 62, 63 Hadriane Petra 120 Hadriani 91 Hadriania 62 Hadrianopolis 63, 64 Haidra 98 Haliartus 169 Hatra 100 Hebron 10, 25 Heraclea Pontica 71 Herodium 25 Hierapolis 29 Hierapytna 97 Hispania 140 Hispania Ulterior 163 Horbat ‘Eqed 25 Horbat Hazon 25 Horbat Hita 25

INDEXES

Horbat Maran 25 Horbat Midras 25 Horbat Naqiq 25 Horbat Um Shaqef 25 Ilium 171 Jaffa 72 Jericho 10, 105 Jerusalem 1, 3, 6, 10, 23, 24, 29, 31, 39, 55, 72-75, 80, 81, 83, 102, 107, 150, 151, 152, 161, 162, 169, 173, 175, 177 Khirbet Beit Arza 81 Khirbet Benaya 125 Kisamos 98 Lampsacus 71 Laodicea 119 Leontopolis 74, 102 Libya 61, 63, 90, 96, 141, 151, 176 Locri 169 Luxor 20 Lycia 41, 63 Lydia 63 Macedonia 61, 63, 141, 151, 160 Mantinea 62 Mauretania 69, 92, 94, 141 Mauretania Caesariensis 92, 93 Mauretania Tingitana 92 Mealopolis 62 Megara 61, 63 Mesopotamia 74, 87, 90, 95, 158, 176 Mesopotamon 170 Miletopolis 61 Misenum 149 Moesia 94, 158, 159, 163 Moesia Superior 158, 163 Moesia Inferior 163 Mona 171, 172 Morgantina 169 Mursa 159 Mysia 63 Nahal Mikhmash 26 Nahal Qeni 110 Naples 130, 141 Nea Kome 71, 161 Neapolis (Shechem) 10, 80, 81, 105, 112 Nicaea 48, 61 Nicomedia 61, 139 Numidia 69

221

Oltenia 94, 159 Palmyra 20, 30, 119, 121 Pamphylia 41, 151 Pannonia 6, 72, 158, 159, 163 Pannonia Inferior 73, 105, 159 Panopolis 162 Paphlagonia 63 Parion 71 Parium 62 Parthia 87, 100, 134 Patras 70 Pella 49, 50, 55, 120 Peloponnese 151 Pelusium 60 Peraea 142 Pergamum 62 Petra 28, 73, 108, 116, 120 Philadelphia/Amman 108, 116, 120, 124 Philippi 160 Phoenicia 151 Photice 70 Phrygia 63, 141 Pisidia 63, 69, 158 Pontus 63 Propontis 69 Ptolemais (Acre) 70, 71, 106, 116, 161 Ramat Rachel 81 Rhesaena 158 Rhodes 63 Rome 10, 59, 60, 74, 75, 83, 86, 88, 91, 95, 98, 100, 102, 104, 108, 112, 118, 134, 135, 146, 152, 153, 157, 159, 171, 174, 175 Salumias (Salem) 121 Sardinia 100, 103 Sarmizegetusa 10, 158 Scythopolis 98, 99, 105, 108, 120, 121 Sebaste/Samaria 6 Selinus 41 Sepphoris (Diocaesarea) 105-106, 112115, 122, 145, 146 Shu’afat 29, 51, 77-81, 150, 173 Sicilia 132, 141 Siscia 44 Smyrna 62, 63, 117, 124 Soknopaiou Nesos 149 Sparta 62

222

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Stratonicea 64 Syracuse 169 Syria 61, 63, 69, 106, 119, 151 Syria Palaestina 128, 129, 162, 163 Talpiot 81 Tarentum 169 Tarracina 42 Tegea 62 Tell el-Ful 80 Teucheira 64 Thamugadi 70 Thamusida 93 Thapsus 44 Thebes 170 Thessaly 151 Tiberias 28, 73, 112, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 145, 146 Tralles 43 Troad 61 Troy 171 Tunisia 63 Turkey 63 Tyre 119 Vasio Vocontiorum 103 Vetera 158 Volubilis 93 Wadi ‘Ara 122 Roman colonies Colonia Aelia Capitolina Bakery 19-20 Bathhouse 18-20 Boundaries 2-3 Bread stamps 37 Brick stamps 6, 18, 19 Bridge remains 38 Buildings and monuments 7-10 Canabae 2, 71 Capitol 15 Cardo Maximus 4, 8 Cemeteries 11-12 Church of the Holy Sepulchre 3, 4, 9, 14, 15 Circus 5 Coins 26, 37 Damascus Gate 4, 7-10, 33

Date of the preparatory building works 31-39 Decumanus Maximus 4, 38 Eastern Cardo 33, 33-38 Forum 4, 9 Foundation Coinage 6-27 Founding official date 29-31 Gates 4-10 Golgotha 15 Imperial Roads 11 Inhabitants 1-3, 6-7 Jaffa Gate 6, 10 Juridical status 2 Language 2 Legionary camp 17-20 Madaba Map 8, 33 Magistrates 2 Military bakery 19 Military bread stamps 37 Name 12-13 Praetorium 5 Roads to and from Aelia Capitolina 10-11 Roman refuse dump 36, 38 Statues 3-6, 8-10, 16, 18, 151, 152 Temple Mount 4, 10, 14-20, 38, 47, 81 Temple of Aphrodite 4 Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus 14-15, 154 Temple of Venus 6 Theatre 5 Training ground 9, 17 Triumphal arches 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 Veterans 1-2 Wall 4 Wilson’s Arch 5 Colonia Aelia Mursa 6, 64, 157-159 Colonia Agrippinensium 160 Colonia Camulodunum 158, 160 Colonia Concordia Iulia Carthago 15 Colonia Iulia Flavia Augusta Corinthiensis 161 Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis 40, 161 Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesariensis 1

INDEXES

Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa 10, 94, 107, 158, 161-162 Roman municipia Aquincum 64 Bassiana 64 Calama 70 Carnuntum 64 Cibalae 64 Halicanum 65 Mogentiana 64 Municipium Iasorum 65 Mursella 65 Salla 65 Thubursicu 70 Viminacium 64

223

Roman military forces Cohors I Thracum Milliaria 150 Legio I Italica 104 Legio II Adjutrix 158 Legio II Traiana 106, 108, 109, 111 Legio III Cyrenaica 120 Legio III Parthica 158 Legio V Macedonica 158 Legio VI Ferrata 123 Legio VI Victrix 158 Legio X Fretensis 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-9, 17-20, 30, 36, 71, 107, 111, 149, 157 Legio XII Fulminata 9 Legio XXII Deiotariana 177 Legio XXII Primigenia 158

SELECTED TOPICS Adventus Ritual 118-119 Avodah zarah (idolatry) 13, 15, 130, 151, 169 Ariston of Pella’s views 50-51 Baquates 93 Bar Kokhba War 18, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 40-42, 45, 49-51, 55-56, 75-80, 98, 101, 128, 129, 132, 133, 141, 142, 149, 150, 155, 163, 168, 173, 177, 178 Brigantes 95 Canabae 158 Capitolia 6 Cave systems 25 Change of the name of Provincia Judaea 128 Coins discoveries in Judean subterranean installations 25-28 Coins discovery in the El-Jai Cave in Nahal Mikhmash 26-28 Dio Cassius Date of Aelia Capitolina’s foundation 23-24, 45, 48-49 Sources 41-44 Personal insights 44-45 Xiphilinus’ summary 45-47 Dio’s attitude toward the Jews 47-48

Epispasm 146, 148 Eusebius Date of Aelia Capitolina’s foundation 49-51 Sources 49-51 Views regarding the Jewish People 52-57 Fiscus Judaicus 13, 75, 102 Great War 71, 72, 81, 101, 102, 111, 112 Hadrian Accession-related issues 85-91 Attitude vis-à-vis foreign cults 175176 Building policy in the provinces 60-67 Caesareum 121 Foreign policy 86-99 Hadrian as ktistes 60-66, 121, 123 Hadrian as neocoros 67 Hadrian as pater patriae 61, 125, 128, 132 Hadrian as restitutor 61, 68, 90, 134-141 Hadrianeum 59, 62, 117, 123, 135 145 Honored as ‘Olympios’ 12, 117 Imperial Cult 67, 117, 166

224

AELIA CAPITOLINA IN CONTEXT

Itinerary of Hadrian’s visit to Judaea 119-123 Judean Adventus-coins 126-130 New eras and festivals in honor of Hadrian 124 Creation of municipia 64-65 Panhellenion 66-67 Provincial policy 59, 69-71 Religious persecution in Judea? 168169 Road building in Judaea 105-109, 122, 125 Unrest episodes at the beginning of his reign 92-99 Hellenization 60, 73, 146, 153, 176 Iazyges 94, 95, 159 Increasing influence of the pagan elite in Judaea 112-117

Jewish Diaspora Uprisings 61, 74-75, 96, 102, 106, 107, 109, 114, 116, 152, 159, 167, 176 Judean subterranean installations 24-25 Migration 78 Miqva’ot 78 Municipia 64-65, 158 Parthian War 87, 109, 176 Roman policy vis-à-vis sacred sites of rebelling people 169-172 Romanization 65, 70, 71, 73 Roxolani 95, 159 Sarmatians 90, 94, 95, 159 Shu’afat archaeological excavations 7781 Tension in Judaea before the Bar Kokhba War? 73, 148-150 War of Qitos 101

Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion  1. Leonard V. Rutgers, ed., What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem. Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster (Leuven: Peeters, 2002).  2. Karin Zetterholm, Portrait of a Villain. Laban the Aramean in Rabbinic Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2002).  3. Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz, eds., Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire (Leuven: Peeters, 2002).  4. Jodi Magness, Debating Qumran. Collected Essays on Its Archaeology (Leuven: Peeters, 2004).  5. Stephen Spencer, The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church as a Case Study (Leuven: Peeters, 2004).  6. Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116-117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Leuven: Peeters, 2005).  7. Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem against Rome (Leuven: Peeters, 2006).  8. Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Leuven: Peeters, 2007).  9. Yaron Z. Eliav, Elise A. Friedland and Sharon Herbert, The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East. Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power (Leuven: Peeters, 2008). 10. Claudia Sagona, Looking for Mithra in Malta (Leuven: Peeters, 2009). 11. Alexander Evers, Church, Cities, and People. A Study of the Plebs in the Church and Cities of Roman Africa in Late Antiquity (Leuven: Peeters, 2010). 12. Stephen Mitchell and Peter Van Nuffelen, eds., Monotheism between Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity (Leuven: Peeters, 2010). 13. Simon C. Mimouni, Early Judaeo-Christianity. Historical Essays (Leuven: Peeters, 2012). 14. Ine Jacobs, ed., Production and Prosperity in the Theodosian Period (Leuven: Peeters, 2014). 15. Christian Laes, Katarina Mustakallio and Ville Vuolanto, eds., Children and Family in Late Antiquity. Life, Death and Interaction (Leuven: Peeters, 2015). 16. Saskia Stevens, City Boundaries and Urban Development in Roman Italy (Leuven: Peeters, 2017).

17. Rolf Strootman, The Birdcage of the Muses. Patronage of the Arts and Sciences at the Ptolemaic Imperial Court, 305-222 BCE (Leuven: Peeters, 2017). 18. Pierliugi Lanfranchi and Joseph Verheyden, eds., Jews and Christians in Antiquity. A Regional Perspective (Leuven: Peeters, 2018). 19. Cristina Pimentel and Nuno Simões Rodrigues, eds., Violence in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Leuven: Peeters, 2018). 20. Mark Van Strydonck, Jeroen Reyniers and Fanny Van Cleven, eds., Relics @ the Lab: An Analytical Approach to the Study of Relics (Leuven: Peeters, 2018). 21. Katell Berthelot and Jonathan Price, eds., In the Crucible of Empire: The Impact of Roman Citizenship upon Greeks, Jews and Christians (Leuven: Peeters, 2019). 22. Sabine R. Huebner and David M. Ratzan, eds., Missing Mothers. Maternal Absence in Antiquity (Leuven: Peeters, 2021). 23. Leonard V. Rutgers and Ortal-Paz Saar, eds., Letters in the Dust. The Epigraphy and Archaeology of Medieval Jewish Cemeteries (Leuven: Peeters, 2023).

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706