The Urbanization of Palestine

A. H. M. Jones

doi:10.2307/296484

The Urbanization of Palestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012

A. H. M. Jones

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The object of this paper is to trace the administrative development in Roman times of the Judaeo-Samaritan territory proper, that is of Galilee, Peraea, Samaria and Judaea as delimited by Josephus, excluding the tetrarchy of Philip and the cities of the Decapolis and of the coast. My reasons for choosing this region are that it affords a highly interesting, because singularly well-documented, example of that development from a centralised bureaucratic administration to a régime of autonomous city-states, which was generally promoted by the Roman government, and that it incidentally throws some light on that subject of perennial interest,—the attitude of the Roman authorities to the Jews.

During the first century of our era, each of the four regions enumerated above formed an administrative unit. Each had its capital and was subdivided into smaller units, termed toparchies. The evidence is fullest for Judaea. Here Jerusalem was the capital, and there were eleven toparchies. The list according to Josephus is Jerusalem, Gophna, Acrabatta, Thamna, Lydda, Emmaus, Pella, Idumaea, Engaddi, Herodium and Jericho. A similar list is given by Pliny who, however, omits Idumaea and Engaddi and calls Pella Bethleptapha.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , 1931 , pp. 78 - 85

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/296484 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright ©A. H. M. Jones 1931. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 78 note 1} Bell., III, iii.

^{page 78 note 2} Bell., III, iii, 5.

^{page 78 note 3} N.H. V, xiv, 70.

^{page 78 note 4} Pliny also incorrectly includes Joppa, which, though it may well have been a toparchy until after the Jewish war when it first issued coins as Flavia Ioppe (de Saulcy, p. 176–7), was not part of Judaea. Nor similarly was Jamnia, though it certainly was a toparchy in the first century A.D. (Jos., Ant., XVIII ii, 2.).

^{page 78 note 5} Bell., IV, viii, 1.

^{page 78 note 6} Macc. I, v, 3.

^{page 78 note 7} The term ‘nome’ is used in the text of Demetrius' letter, the term ‘toparchy’ by the historian.

^{page 78 note 8} Macc. I, x, 30, 38; xi, 28, 34.

^{page 78 note 9} Jos., Vita, 9.

^{page 79 note 1} Jos., Bell. II, xiii, 2.

^{page 79 note 2} Macc., II, v, 23.

^{page 79 note 3} Bell., III, xviii, 10.

^{page 79 note 4} Jos. Bell., IV, vii, 3. This Gadara was not, of course, the city of the Decapolis, but another town of the same name identified with Es Salt (see Pauly-Wissowa, art. ‘Gadara’).

^{page 79 note 5} Jos., Bell., II, xiii, 2.

^{page 79 note 6} Compare the parallel passage Ant., XX, viii, 4.

^{page 79 note 7} Jos., Bell., II, iv, 2.

^{page 79 note 8} Jos., Ant., XVIII, ii, 1.

^{page 79 note 9} Jos., Ant., XVII, x, 6.

^{page 79 note 10} Georgius Cyprius, ed. Gelzer (Teubner), 1016, 1018, 1019.

^{page 79 note 11} Eus., , Onomasticon, ed. Larsow, and Parthey, , p. 112–3Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 12} Philoteria, on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee (Polyb., V, 70) does not reappear after its destruction by Alexander Jannaeus (Syncellus, i, 558).

^{page 79 note 13} Chron. Arm., ed. Schoene, , II, 116Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 14} Chron. Arm., ed. Schoene, , II, 118Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 15} Jos., Ant., XIII, x, 2, 3; Bell., I, ii, 7.

^{page 79 note 16} Jos., Ant., XIV, iv, 4; Bell., I, vii, 7.

^{page 79 note 17} Jos., Ant., XIV, v, 3; Bell., I, viii, 4.

^{page 79 note 18} I do not deal with such foundations as lie outside my territory. Even among these, however, the only undoubted new city is Caesarea Panias. The other Caesarea and Agrippias were, of course only re-foundations and so I hold was Gabae, for I see no reason to attribute the coins issued by a city of that name and dated by the Gabinian era (Head, Hist. Num., p. 786) to another city of the same name in Philip's tetrarchy, otherwise unknown, merely because the Gabenes style themselves ‘Claudieis Philippeis’; Philip may have conferred benefits on a city not in his tetrarchy. The city status of Bethsaida Julias (which issued no coins, and does not figure in lists of Hierocles or Georgius Cyprius) is very doubtful. Esbus is always alluded to as a district, Esbonitis, by Josephus, and it did not coin until under Elagabalus; the title Aurelia which it bears on these coins may imply that it owed its rank as a city to that Emperor.

^{page 80 note 1} Jos., Ant., XVII, xiii, 1.

^{page 80 note 2} Ant., XVI, v, 2 and XVIII, ii, 1.

^{page 80 note 3} See note 18 on page 79.

^{page 80 note 4} Jos., Ant., XVI, v, 2.

^{page 80 note 5} Jos., Bell., II, xix, 1.

^{page 80 note 6} Ant. XVIII, ii, 1.

^{page 80 note 7} Jos., Vita, 9.

^{page 80 note 8} Vita. 67.

^{page 80 note 9} De Saulcy, p. 325–326, Head, Hist. Num., p. 802.

^{page 80 note 10} De Saulcy, pp. 275–281 and 333–338, Head, Hist. Num., pp. 803, 802.

^{page 80 note 11} Jos., Bell., II, xxi, 9.

^{page 80 note 12} Jos., Vita, 13, 57.

^{page 80 note 13} Jos. Vita, 27, 53, 54, 57.

^{page 80 note 14} Sebaste, Ant., XV, viii, 5; Bell. I, xxi, 2; Tiberias, Ant., XVIII, ii, 3.

^{page 81 note 1} Vita, 9.

^{page 81 note 2} Jos. Vita, 12.

^{page 81 note 3} Jos., Ant., XVIII, v, 3.

^{page 81 note 4} Jos., Ant., XVIII, iv, 2.

^{page 81 note 5} Jos., Bell., II, xii, 3.

^{page 81 note 6} Vita, passim.

^{page 81 note 7} Jos. Vita., 9.

^{page 81 note 8} Bell., VII, vi, 6.

^{page 82 note 1} De Saulcy, pp. 244 sqq., Head, Hist. Num., p. 803.

^{page 82 note 2} Cassius Dio, lxix, 12.

^{page 82 note 3} De Saulcy, pp. 83–109, Head, Hist. Num., p. 803.

^{page 82 note 4} De Saulcy, pp. 327–9, Head, Hist. Num., p. 802.

^{page 82 note 5} De Saulcy, pp. 333–48 and 44–74, Head, Hist. Num., pp. 802, 803.

^{page 82 note 6} Of Ζεὺς Ὕψιστος (Phot. Bibl., 242, Migne, Patr. Graec., ciii, 1284 B).

^{page 82 note 7} Epiphanius, Adv. haer., 136, Migne, Patr. Graec., xii, 425 A.

^{page 82 note 8} Epiphanius, loc. cit.

^{page 82 note 9} Rev. bib., 1904, p. 270, Kubitschek, Oesterr. Jahresh., vi, pp. 50 seqq.

^{page 82 note 10} De Saulcy, pp. 241–3 and 170–1, Head, Hist. Num., pp. 804, 802.

^{page 82 note 11} Eus., Chron., a.Ab. 2237.

^{page 82 note 12} Hieron., Chron. Pasch., 267 D.

^{page 82 note 13} These cities may, of course, have been outside my area. If within it, they would by a process of elimination (see below, p. 83) be in N.W. Samaria and Upper Galilee respectively.

^{page 82 note 14} Hierocles, ed. Burckhardt (Teubner), 720, 10; Georg. Cypr., 1012.

^{page 82 note 15} Hieron., in Zach., III, xii, II, Migne, Patr. Lat., xxv, 1515 c.

^{page 82 note 16} Sozom., Hist. Eccl., II. 2; Hierocles, 720, 8; Georg. Cypr., 1038.

^{page 83 note 1} The eastern part of this toparchy is wilderness, and if it included any fertile territory it must have included the region of Hebron at least. Hebron belonged to Eleutheropolis since Zib. eight miles east of it, did.

^{page 83 note 2} Theodoret, Quaest. I in Paralip. II, 575 Migne, Patr. Graec., lxxx. 826 D.

^{page 83 note 3} Rev. bib., 1904, p. 264–270.

^{page 84 note 1} Sozom., Hist. Eccl., V, 15, VI, 32.

^{page 84 note 2} They are Jamnia, Onus, Sycamazon, Bittylios and Azotos Halinos.

^{page 85 note 1} Dig., XV, i, 7.

Article contents

The Urbanization of Palestine

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests