The Economy of Roman Palestine

Ze'ev Safrai

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781134851867
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Altertum

The Economy of Roman Palestine presents a description of the economy of the province of Judea-Palestina in the Roman era (AD70 to AD400) on the basis of a broad selection of primary rabbinic sources and a considerable volume of archaeological findings. The period studied is characterised by demographic growth and corresponding economic development. The work describes the agricultural and agrarian structure of the province, the pattern of settlement, trade, and other aspects, depicting an economy based to a great extent on an open market.

1 Settlement patterns

I. CLASSIFICATION OF SETTLEMENTS

Classical culture recognized three different levels of settlement: (1) the independent polis; (2) the “town” or agricultural village; (3) the “villa” or rural farmstead. Talmudic literature also dealt with the classification of the different types of settlement. The sages often refer to the tripartite distinction between town (kerakh), ‘yr, and village (kfr) (Krauss 1929, pp. 1– 50). The kerakh was a large, fortified (walled) settlement, populated by non-Jews. Thus, one who would enter such a settlement was required to recite a special prayer in view of the dangers of a large city. In terms of settlement status, the kerakh was similar to the non-Jewish polis in Palestine, although the two need not always have been the same.

According to Krauss (ibid.), the kerakh was a walled settlement. We shall not, however, deal with this point in detail. In any event, it is clear that one of the major characteristics of this type of settlement was the great number of luxury items available there (see, for example, T Miqva’ot 4:6; T Shabbat 4:3; BT Shabbat 41b; T Eruvin 9:18; PT Eruvin VIII, 25b; T Avodah Zarah 6:6; BT Avodah Zarah 12a; T Bava Metzia 3:20; BT Bava Metzia 52a; T Berachot 7:16; BT Berachot 60a; T Avodah Zarah 1:6; T Kelim Bava Metzia 10:6; T Pesahim 1:13 and parallels; T Nidah 6:9).

The village in this context is a site, a number of buildings or a small settlement without public or communal institutions (see below). The town (‘yr) includes all of those settlements somewhere in between the “village” and the gentile polis. This type of settlement complex was called ‘yr (singular), ‘yyrot (plural) and in Aramaic krt’ (singular), kryyt’ (plural). Talmudic traditions also distinguish between a “large ‘yr” and a “small ‘yr.” We shall return to deal with this distinction in the course of our discussion.

The Sages did not always adhere strictly to these distinctions in terminology. In addition to the tripartite division discussed above, there was also a dual division: kerach and village. The former was a rich and developed settlement while the latter had a much lower standard of living. The women in the kerach were more wont to frequent bathhouses. The bakers in the kerach baked more and more often than those of the village. There were many other similar distinctions (T Pesahim 1:13 and parallels; T Niddah 6:9 et al.). There were also distinctions between the residents of the various types of settlements. The resident of the ‘yr (krtny—from krt’) is often juxtaposed to the resident of the city. The urban dweller is accustomed to wealth and power associated with the government while the rural krtny is naive and ill at ease with life in the big city. The midrash describes how a rural bumpkin (krtny) came to the city and proceeded to break expensive glassware. The owner, an urban resident, did not ask for payment since the krtny had neither any idea of the value of the glass nor the means to pay anyway (Bereshit Rabbah 19:6, p. 175; see also T Kiddushin 2:7; BT Hagigah 13b et al.). It should be pointed out, however, that the Rabbinic sources were not always consistent in their use of the terminology and sometimes the village and ‘yr are interchanged.

This lack of consistency on the part of the rabbis, as well as on the part of gentile authors, can lead to a degree of confusion. ‘yr or town may refer a few times to a polis, to a farmstead or to a village. Kryyt’ can refer to a small village or to large villages with thousands of inhabitants. The various phrases and concepts can even be interchanged at times in the same source.

Of course, the modern-day scholar cannot make do with the ancient and occasionally confusing system of antiquity. The ancient system may, however, still serve as the basis for the classification of settlements. This question of definition between town (village) and city will be discussed below in III.4. We should like to propose the following levels of settlement:

1. polis
   
   • metropolis (capital of a province)
   • important cities such as Joppa, Eleutheropolis, Diospolis, Neapolis (second century), Gaza, Ascalon, etc.
   • smaller cities such as Jamnia, Azotus, Sebaste (from the second century), Diocletianopolis, Aelia Capitolina (in the Roman period), Nicopolis, and other cities.
   This subdivision represents the varying sizes of cities, but not administrative or municipal differences.
2. town
   • “large town” (local center—capital of an area)
   • “medium-size town”—large village or local center
   • “small town”—small village town.
   This second category is found in the sources themselves. A baraita in BT Ta’anit 21a explicitly differentiates between a “large town” and a “small town.” Eusebius in his Onomasticon differentiates between a village, large village, and town (policne). The Madeba Map (Avi-Yonah 1953) dis-tinguishes between poleis, large towns, small towns, villages, and plain rural buildings. Essentially, the classification described here is based on an analysis of the size and transportation networks of the various settlements in the Galilee and Samaria. The major differences between the settlements are found in the levels of transportation networks pertaining to the individual settlements. The ancient sources also refer to different levels of “cities,” such as the capitals of toparchies like Jericho, Gofna, Thamna and Lod (before it became a city), or to settlements which are described as a “town and its satellite (or offshoot) settlements” such as “Sikhnin and its satellite settlements,” “Beth Hananiah and its satellite settlements” or “Ginossar and its satellite settlements” (S. and Z.Safrai 1975). It is clear, of course, that in addition to these large settlements there were medium-sized and smaller settlements, and for this reason we have proposed our own system. The differences between the settlements mentioned above (2a-c) are in respect to size and population, but not in essential matters. Therefore, in the course of our discussion we shall be able to refer to the different types of settlements cited in (2) as one basic unit.
3. village
   • a village composed of a small number of private houses
   • the private “‘yr” or Roman villa, usually a house or a number of houses belonging to a wealthy landowner.

The village is a branch, as it were, of the ‘yr. Farmers whose land is far from the mother settlement and who find it difficult to return to their homes every day would build a temporary domicile outside the mother settlement. On the other hand, the rich landowner does not want at all to be connected to the mother city and prefers to maintain his distance.

The term ‘yr in Talmudic literature refers at times to the private farmstead of a landowner, while the village (kfr) can refer to (3a–b). We shall discuss this further in the course of the book.

II.
THE POLIS

II.1
Introduction

As in the rest of the Roman Empire, the cities in Palestine were also the backbone of the province. Municipal activities, government functions, economic affairs, the cultural and intellectual life of the provinces all revolved around the city. The Roman Empire can be defined as a system in which the cities rule the rural population. In this respect, Provincia Judaea-Palastina was no different from any other province of the Roman Empire. The economic structure of the Palestinian polis can, therefore, be studied within the context of the cities of the Empire.

Many studies have examined the phenomenon of the polis at this time. Some studies deal with the polis in the context of the Roman Empire in general (Jones 1971; Claude 1969) while some deal with local problems of cities in the provinces or with specific provinces (Magie 1950; Wacher 1975). There is, as yet, no complete collection of the material on Palestinian cities and, therefore, there is no purpose in dealing with these cities as a separate unit. In this chapter we shall attempt to point out the general characteristics of the city during the Roman period in Palestine.

II.2
Urbanization

II.2.1
The Hellenistic period (before the Hasmonean revolt)

The Hellenistic period begins, for our purposes, in the middle of the Persian period when the coastal cities mentioned in the description of Pseudo-Scylax first appear. It is clear that there were many changes during the Hellenistic period (lasting about four hundred years), but it is not always possible to determine all the details regarding these urban developments. Even so, it is possible to deal with this period as one unit. The cities which were built during this time can be divided into three basic categories (Avi-Yonah 1963, pp. 17–35; Z.Safrai 1982).

II.2.1.1
Coastal cities

The Greeks established colonies along the coast from Achzib in the north to Raphia in the south. However, the ancients did not really know which were the appropriate spots in which to set up a port or harbor city. They also did not always know where such cities were unnecessary. As a result of this ignorance, many cities were founded in the Hellenistic period, but only few of these cities survived beyond that time. Cities like Achzib, Haifa (or Shiqmona), Crocodilonpolis and Adaroth disappeared after this time. The coastal cities during this period were generally established at distances of 8–16 kilometers from one another. The smallest distance is between Crocodilonpolis (at the mouth of Nahal Taninim) and Straton’s Tower (later Caesarea), a mere 5 kilometers, and the 2–3 kilometers between Anthedon and Maiumas Gaza. The greatest distance between coastal cities is the 25 kilometers between Straton’s Tower and Apollonia. Not all the cities were built at the same time during the Hellenistic period, nor were they all similar in size. It is clear that Straton’s Tower and Apollonia were built later on. Apollonia, Shiqmona, Crocodilonpolis and Bucolonpolis were, it appears, very small (Avi-Yonah 1963, pp. 25 ff.).

Paradoxically, Beth She’an should also be added to the list of coastal cities. All the coastal cities were located on important highways and enjoyed excellent agricultural conditions. Beth She’an, throughout all the periods under discussion here, fulfilled both of these conditions and, therefore, for the purpose of our discussion, should be added to the list of coastal cities. Its commercial importance was the result of the fact that it was located at an important commercial intersection leading to the cities of the Transjordan.

II.2.1.2
Cities of the mountainous regions

At this time there were four administrative units: Galilee, Samaria, Judaea and Idumaea. The “city” need not always have been the capital of the district, or region. It is doubtful whether Beth Yerah belonged to the Galilee from an administrative point of view, but it is clear that economically speaking, it should be considered part of that district. Among the cities of the mountainous regions, only Samaria (the future Sebaste) was a large and strong polis and this was the case only because the government established a Macedonian colony there. Beth Yerah and Adora did not survive beyond the Hellenistic period. Jerusalem did survive, and more or less functioned as an urban center, but the Greek community there did not develop.

II.2.1.3
Cities of the inner plain

Pegai, Maresha and Geba belong to this category. All of these cities were founded after the Greek conquest of Palestine and are not listed in Pseudo-Scylax. Many of these cities tried to secure control over the mountainous regions, in spite of the difficulties (economic and political) in building cities in this area.

II.2.2
The Hasmonean kingdom

The Hasmoneans conquered most of the coastal cities. These cities also suffered damage as a result of this conquest. The status of these cities during the Hasmonean period is not clear, but it is certain that they all suffered difficulties during this time and it was as if urban development came to a standstill in spite of the economic growth of that period. Only Joppa continued to function as a harbor city at that time (Applebaum 1980).

Pompey and Gabinius

Pompey (63 BC) restored many Greek cities. However, it seems that he did not found or build new cities. Rather, he restored some of the Greek cities from the pre-Hasmonean days. Pompey’s decision regarding individual cities can be seen as a process of selection whereby it was decided which cities were viable and could survive, and which small artificial cities could not. Another process of selection was undertaken by Gabinius a few years later. Thus a drop in the number of cities in Palestine does not indicate a drop in the level of urbanization or a halt to urban development. On the contrary, the criteria for the establishment of cities became much higher. Small cities like Pegai, Crocodilonpolis and others were not restored and continued to function only as villages. It should be pointed out that Joppa did not become a polis, but remained in Jewish hands and continued to function as a Jewish port (Avi-Yonah 1963, p. 49).

Herod

Herod built three entirely new cities: Caesarea (Straton’s Tower), Sebaste (Samaria) and Geba (as well as Antipatris which, however, did not become a polis). All three were actually ancient cities which Herod restored and built almost completely anew in elaborate and ornate form. Herod, in spite of all his building activities, never really built a completely new city. He did, however, spend a good deal of money on the construction of Sebaste and Caesarea and built an extensive harbor for that last city, providing it with an important economic base.

II.2.3
The sons of Herod (4 BCE-4 CE)

The sons of Herod ruled over Galilee and the Golan which had been considered marginal until this time in terms of geopolitical interests. Thus no cities were built there up to this time (except for Beth Yerah or Philoteria during the Hellenistic period, which did not survive beyond that time for lack of the appropriate basis for urban survival). The attention that these regions now received resulted in the construction of a number of new cities, some of which existed almost down to modern times. The building of Julias was an absolute failure. Herod Antipas apparently thought that the city could survive in a fertile agricultural region even if it was not built near major roads. Julias is near a number of secondary routes, but it seems this was not enough.

Livias, built in the Transjordan, also did not survive too long. The two cities that were built in the Galilee, however, Sepphoris and Tiberias, s...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• FIGURES
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABBREVIATIONS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
• 2: MODES OF PRODUCTION
• 3: TRADE IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IN THE ROMAN PERIOD
• 4: THE ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF FARMING
• 5: OPEN OR CLOSED ECONOMY IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL DURING THE ROMAN PERIOD?
• 6: DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLICATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
• APPENDIX I RABBINIC LITERATURE: AN ILLUSTRATED LEXICON
• APPENDIX II RABBINIC TEXTS: ABBREVIATIONS
• BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT SOURCES
• GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY