Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:17:14.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syria under Vespasian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

G. W. Bowersock
G. W. Bowersock
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of Syria and Transjordan during the period immediately after the close of the Jewish War is obscure. Yet scattered hints in the sources together with the random evidence of epigraphy and numismatics imply policies and developments of some moment. These may be presumed to have a bearing upon the annexation of Arabia by Trajan. The present investigation emphasizes the land which lies to the east of the great depression which runs from north to south along the River Orontes, the Lebanese Beqa‘, and the River Jordan. When the literary texts are brought into conjunction with the evidence on and from the ground, some progress can be made.

Josephus has left us a detailed account of the Jewish War of Vespasian. This emperor's knowledge of the Near East was superior to that of all his predecessors on the throne of the Caesars. Apart from Augustus' and Tiberius' visit in 20 B.C. none had ever seen the Levant. Policy was made at a distance and administered when necessary by persons specially empowered, an Agrippa or a Germanicus.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 63 , November 1973 , pp. 133 - 140
Copyright
Copyright ©G. W. Bowersock 1973. 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

1 Legate of X Fretensis: Jos., BJ 3, 289 ff., 458, 485; 4, 450.

2 cf. Morris, J., JRS 43 (1953), 79Google Scholar; Syme, R., JRS 43 (1953), 154Google Scholar and Tacitus (1958), 30, n. 2.

3 IGR 4, 845.

4 Seyrig, H., Syria 13 (1932), 266 ff.Google Scholar = AE 1933, 205, improving on Mouterde, P., Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph xv, 6 (1930), 232–3.Google Scholar

5 Robert, L., CRAI 1951, 255.Google Scholar

6 BMC Syria, p. 180, no. 239. Cf. Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (1970), p. 123Google Scholar, n. 51.

7 Celsus: AE 1907, 193; Paetus: Jos., , BJ 7, 59Google Scholar. Cf. Eck, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 115 and 117.

8 Welles, C. B. and Kraeling, C. H., Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (1938), pp. 397–8Google Scholar, n. 50, discussed below; BMC Galatia, p. 272, no. 31. Cf. PIR 2, C 603; also Eck, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 125, n. 61: ‘Er dürfte wohl der unmittelbare Nachfolger des M. Ulpius Traianus in Syrïen sein’. It is theoretically possible that an unknown governor succeeded Traianus in 77 and that Commodus did not arrive until 79, but this would not be the most plausible interpretation of the present evidence.

9 Grosso, F., ‘M. Ulpio Traiano, governatore di Siria’, Rend. Instit. Lombardo (1957), 318–342.Google Scholar The Antioch inscription was also missed by Durry, M., ‘Sur Trajan père’, Les empereurs romains d'Espagne (1965), p. 45 ff.Google Scholar

10 Pliny, , Panegyr. 16, 1.Google Scholar

11 op. cit. (n. 10), 14, 1.

12 For Lesser Armenia, see Cumont, F., ‘L'annexion du Pont Polémoniaque et de la Petite Arménie’, Anatolian Studies pres. to Ramsay (1923), 109 ff.Google Scholar Cappadocia: Suetonius, Vesp. 8,4.

13 Syme, , Tacitus (1958), p. 31Google Scholar, n. 1.

14 Milet i, 5 (1919), p. 53 (where the reading of the first fragment should be corrected to IVM, etc.). I am very grateful to Peter Herrmann for sending me squeezes of this inscription. Like Dessau, I cannot place the fragment PIQ (or PIC), but [VL] PIQ suggests itself.

15 Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (1969), p. 157Google Scholar with n. 49: ‘Der Irrtum ergab sich offenbar dadurch, dass die Inschrift unter Titus gesetzt wurde’. Alföldy prints Dessau's ILS text and follows Hanslik (P-W Suppl. x, 1033) in wrongly reporting Syme's proposal as a governorship of a praetorian (sic) province such as Cappadocia-Galatia in 69/70.

16 cf. Dessau, op. cit. (n. 14). The Trajanic date of the Nymphaeum inscription was properly recognized by Durry, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 48.

17 Jos., BJ 7, 219 ff.

18 On this frontier see Strabo, C 748–9. For the problems of Nero's policy and Corbulo's regard for the Euphrates as the frontier, see the excellent book of Pani, Mario, Roma e i re d'oriente da Augusto a Tiberio (1972), pp. 222 ff.Google Scholar, especially 226.

l9 Domitian: Suet.,Dom. 2, 2. Vologaeses' request: Dio 66, 15, 3.

20 Paribeni, E., Optimus Princeps i (1936), p. 73.Google Scholar

21 Note two irreconcilable texts: Aur. Vict., de Caes. 9, 10, ‘Ac bello rex Parthorum Vologaeses in pacem coactus est’ Anon., Epit. de Caes. 9, 12 ‘Rex Parthorum Vologaeses metu solo in pacem coactus est’. The two texts are manifestly related. The second is likely to contain the corruption: see the argument below on an inscription from Jerash.

22 A new inscription from Palmyra contains a dedication θεῷ Σουρηνῷ δεικέῳ ἔτους πε′: Dunant, Chr., Le sanctuaire de Ba'alshamin à Palmyre: vol. III, Les inscriptions (Institut suisse de Rome, 1971), pp. 42–3Google Scholar, no. 30. She suggests that this is the god of Sura. The date omits, as often at Palmyra, the hundred digit: it is either (3)85=73/74 or (4)85=173/74. The editor, it is true, opts for the later date, ‘en raison de l'aspect général de la pierre et de l'inscription’, but the date of 73/74 is attractive when one thinks of the road to Sura at about that time and the fact that this deity is not otherwise known at Palmyra.

23 Pliny, , NH 5, 88.Google Scholar

24 cf., e.g., Seyrig, H., Syria 22 (1941), 168CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlumberger, D., L'orient hellénisé (1970), p. 78.Google Scholar

25 References to earlier scholars are collected in the admirable edition of the inscription by Rey-Coquais, J.-P., Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie vii (1970), pp. 36–39Google Scholar, no. 4011. Grosso, op. cit. (n. 9), follows Mommsen.

26 op. cit. (n. 24).

27 Seyrig, H., Syria 13 (1932), 267CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Cantineau, J., Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre ix, 2.Google Scholar

28 Cantineau, J., Syria 12 (1931), 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar: The merchant is named 'LKSNDRWS (Alexandres) in 1. 1; Germanicus appears in 1. 3 as GRMNQS and Samsigeramus in 1. 6 as [ŠM] ŠGRM.

29 Tac, , Ann. 2, 42.Google Scholar Cf. Pani, op. cit. (n. 18).

30 See G. W. Bowersock, JRS 61 (1971), 221–8.

31 Dedication of Temple of Bēl: Cantineau, J., Syria 14 (1933), 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Inventaire (n. 27) ix, 1. Ba ‘alshamīn colonnades: Dunant, op. cit. (n. 22), pp. 24–5, no. 10. Temple in 67: Dunant, op. cit. (n. 22), pp. 14–5, nos. 1A and IB.

32 See the magisterial paper of Seyrig, H., ‘Le statut de Palmyre’, Syria 22 (1941), 155 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 For the restoration of Mucianus' name as [MW] QYNS in the Palmyrene, see Seyrig, op. cit. (n. 32), p. 167.

34 op. cit. (n. 32), p. 159.

35 Seyrig, H., CRAI 1940, 240.Google Scholar

36 du mesnil du Buisson, R., CRAI 1966, 170 ff.Google Scholar, Van Berchem, D., CRAI 1970, 231 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Van Berchem, op. cit. (n. 36), 232.

38 Du Mesnil, van Berchem, op. cit. (n. 36).

39 For the later organization, see I. A. Richmond, jRS 53 (1963), 48. He, like von Gerkan whom he quotes, believed the early wall at Palmyra to be the siege-works of Aurelian and the massive later wall to be the town wall at the time of the siege. In favour of a Diocletianic date for the later wall: van Berchem, D., Syria 31 (1954), 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Schlumberger, D., Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph 38 (1962), 87Google Scholar (in an article arguing that the so-called camp of Diocletian was Zenobia's palace).

40 App., Bell. Civ. 5, 9, 37–8.

41 Van Berchem, op. cit. (n. 36), 235–7.

42 op. cit. (n. 36), 234.

43 op. cit. (n. 36), 237.

44 Fellmann, R., Le sanctuaire de Ba'alshamīn à Palmyre: vol. v, Die Grabanlage (Institut suisse de Rome, 1970), pp. 115–16.Google Scholar It is suggested that the cremation in grave no. 11 may be due to Roman influence: pp. 62–3, 123.

45 Intensive work on the temple is attested for 67: Fellmann, op. cit. (n. 44), pp. 116–18, and note 31 above.

46 See C. H. Kraeling, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 34.

47 C. B. Welles apud Kraeling, op. cit. (n. 8), pp. 373–4, no. 2.

48 C. H. Kraeling, pp. 36–9, ‘Nabataean influence’. See also n. 54 below.

49 C. B. Welles apud Kraeling, pp. 375–6, no. 5.

50 C. B. Welles apud Kraeling, pp. 397–8, no. 50. For the duration of Commodus' governorship, see Eck, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 130–1.

51 Syme, R., Athenaeum 35 (1957), 312.Google Scholar I am grateful for a discussion of this point with him when I presented my views to the Columbia University Seminar on Classical Civilization on 19 October, 1972.

52 C. B. Welles apud Kraeling, p. 398.

53 cf. n. 11 above and also n. 21. For a comparable text mentioning the emperor's salus and a governor's victoria, cf. ILS 2486 (Mena'a in Algeria): [pro] salute im[pe]ratorum L. [S]eptimi Severi [Pe]rtinacis Aug. [et] M. Aureli Antoni[ni A]ug. [et P. Septimi Getae| totiusque domus divinae et victoria —i Cens[i]ti leg. Aug. pr. pr. cos. desig.

54 Kraeling, p. 42 (where the account of the northwest gate, however, has to be corrected). It should be noted here that the Nabataean community was apparently engaged in some kind of growth at about this time, to judge from the bilingual inscription (Greek and Nabataean) which is no. 1 in Welles' corpus apud Kraeling, pp. 371–3. J. T. Milik has proposed a new text of the Nabataean half for publication in the CIS, and he has generously allowed me to quote from it. It is a huge improvement on the clearly inadequate text of Vincent and Sauvignac published by Welles. Milik rejects the reading HRTT in line 3 of the Nabataean (= line 12 of the whole), but he sees a date in the final line (7 = 16) most of which can be read in the published photograph: ‘ŠRYN WHD BSYWN SNT'ŠR WHD[H],i.e. 21 Siwan, year 11 of Rabbel (mentioned in the preceding line) = June, A.D. 81. Milik has also read a reference to measurements in line 4 = 13 which at last makes a correlation with indications of direction in the Greek: the subject is the delimitation of a sacred area.

55 See, e.g., Cantineau, J., Le Nabatéen (1932) ii, p. 22Google Scholar, no. 10: DY 'HYY WŠYZB 'MH. Cf. Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 30), 223.

56 Note that the triple arch at Bostra has Nabataean capitals: See Starcky, J., IX Congrès international d'archéologie classique (Damascus, 1969), p. 27Google Scholar = Die Nabatäer, Catalogue Munich Stadtmuseum 1970, p. 83. Cf. Haurān inscriptions of Rabbel II, e.g., in Cantineau, op. cit. (n. 55), pp. 19–23, nos. 8–10; also n. 54 above (Gerasa).

57 Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 30), 221–2, 241–2. Prof. Mahmūd Ghūl, of the American University of Beirut, communicated to an international symposium at Harvard University (17 December 1972) a new Latin inscription from the oasis at al-Jawf. It is a dedication by a centurion of III Cyrenaica. This proves that the Romans, like the Nabataeans, exploited the Wādī Sirḥān.

58 Schlumberger, D., Syria 20 (1939), 57Google Scholar, n. 1; Seyrig, H., Syria 29 (1952), 234Google Scholar, n. 1. Cf. Rey-Coquais, op. cit. (n. 25), p. 116, no. 2217: Emesa attached to the province of Syria ‘peu avant 78‘.

59 cf. Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 30), 223; Jos., AJ 14, 46 ff.

60 Syme, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 31. An abbreviated version of this paper was read in Munich to the Sixth International Congress for Greek and Latin Epigraphy on 19 September 1972.