Archaeology
QesariaCaesarea, Caesarea Maritima, QaisariyePlace descriptionCaesarea was the most important city on the coast between Dor and Apollonia,
following its establishment by King Herod. During the early Roman period it was the
provincial capital of Judea; from Hadrian on through the Byzantine period it was the
Metropolis of Palestine. Intensive archaeological excavations at Caesarea have revealed
the city’s history and urban character. Before describing the city during the
Hellenistic (Straton’s Tower) and Roman periods, it is necessary first to describe the
history of archaeological research of the site, for only then can one synthesize the
archaeological with the historical data (Donaldson 2000). Straton’s Tower (Greek:
Stratonos Pyrgos) predated Herod the Great’s refounding of the city as Caesarea. In
Jewish sources, the name is Migdal Shorshon or Migdal Shor (Megillat Ta’anit; the Rehov
inscription). The origin of the name is debated (Raban 1992; Stieglitz 1996). Although
the place is first mentioned in the Zenon Papyri in 259 BCE, many scholars believe the
name is Phoenician; if so, the small settlement must have already been established in
the Persian period, possibly under Abd-Ashtart I or II, sometime during the fourth
century BCE (Schürer 1979: 115 n. 156). Others reject an early date and put its
establishment in the Ptolemaic period, close to the date mentioned in the Zenon papyri,
suggesting that it was named in honor of a Ptolemaic governor named Straton (Raban 1992;
Stieglitz 1996 and literature listed there). The tyrant Zoilus ruled the city—and also
Dor—in the early first century BCE (Ant. 13.324). Ptolemy Lathyrus defeated Zoilus and
granted the city to Alexander Janneus (Ant. 13.334-36; 395; Levine 1994). With Pompey’s
conquest, the city was freed and became once again a Hellenistic city (War 1.156; Ant.
14.76). The precise location of Straton’s Tower and its character is complicated. Very
little pottery from the fourth century BCE has been found, making the founding of the
city prior to the Hellenistic period doubtful. In Avi-Yonah’s digs north of the Crusader
city in the 1960s, a Hellenistic stratum was discovered that included the corner of a
large house, and pottery from the third and second centuries BCE. Along the coast,
fragments of very thick walls were connected to the quay. The building was re-excavated
again at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the1980s, and remains of the early
Herodian harbor were discovered. Raban suggests that in addition to a northern
Hellenistic quay there was another quay that predated the Herodian harbor. Herod later
turned it into an inner harbor for the port of Sebastos. Most of the Hellenistic remains
date to the second century BCE, the period of Zoilus’ rule, but it seems reasonable that
with more excavation a Ptolemaic stratum will be uncovered. Both the Missione
Archeologia Italiana and Bull’s excavations dated the towers on the northern wall to the
Herodian period, but some have argued the date should be lowered to the time of
Straton’s Tower, so that the Hellenistic city was surrounded by a wall that bordered the
northwest port (Raban 1992; Roller 1992; Stieglitz 1996). The drastic changes in the
city’s form from the Hellenistic to the Herodian period almost completely wiped out the
architectural evidence of Straton’s Tower. A. Kushnir-Stein suggested in 1995 that first
century BCE bronze coins from an unknown city along the coast were really from Straton’s
Tower, which may have been called Demetrias between 160 and 40 BCE, in honor of
Demetrius I. The name Straton’s Tower, however, appears in historical sources throughout
the Hellenistic and Roman periods, indeed, even after the founding of Caesarea by Herod.
Furthermore, not one of the thousands of coins excavated at Caesarea bears the name
Demetrias, so its identification is unresolved (Kushnir-Stein 1995; Lampinen 1999;
Stieglitz 1999). Straton’s Tower lost its importance after the Hasmonean conquest,
judging from the paucity of pottery and numismatic finds between the late-second century
BCE and mid-first century BCE, that is, until the time of Herod. Pompey’s freeing of the
city does not imply that it was rebuilt and resettled, only that it was no longer under
Hasmonean rule. In 30 BCE, Augustus gave Herod parts of Transjordan, the Golan, and
individual cities, such as Gaza, Anthedon, Jaffa, and Straton’s Tower (War 1.396; Ant.
15.217). He initiated a grandiose building project (Ant. 15.331-341; 16.136; War
1.406-414), naming the city Caesarea in honor of Caesar Augustus, and the port, Herod’s
most impressive undertaking, Sebastos (Ant. 17.87). The entire project took ten (Ant.
16.126) or twelve years (Ant. 15.341); construction began in 22 or 20 BCE and was
finished by 10 BCE, although some sources suggest the port was completed by 15 BCE (Ant.
13.16; Roller 1998). Josephus’ description focuses on the port that prompted the
construction project. The port’s archaeological investigation in the 1970s and 1980s
contributed important evidence for understanding its construction methods character.
Herod’s purpose in building the port was to participate in the maritime trade with Rome
and to establish a winter anchorage point that would shorten travel time between
Alexandria and Italy. Having a major port on the Mediterranean would also attract more
international trade from the east through Judea. His biggest problem was that coastline
had neither a bay nor a significant promontory on which to base a port. Herod’s
complicated and expensive engineering project resulted in the port of Caesarea being,
according to Josephus, larger than the harbor at Piraeus. Excavations confirm the port’s
grandeur and Josephus’ descriptions. It was built according to the Hellenistic standard
for closed ports (limên kleistos), which included several enclosed mooring basins
protected by a combination of breakwaters and walls. The inner basin appears to have
been pre-Herodian, probably earlier belonging to Straton’s Tower. The recent excavations
show that this inner basin was larger than originally thought (Raban et al. 1999). A
middle basin enclosed the present fishing port, but the focus of the ancient port was
the larger outer basin. It was enclosed on the south and west by a wide pier or mole
that arced from a small rocky outcrop on its southern edge to a point about 600 meters
northwest of the shoreline. A second mole projected westwards into the sea north of the
basins, to a point close to the end of the other mole. The entrance to the port lay
between these piers, facing north. The piers were wide, sturdy, and strong enough to
support the port’s activity: to moor ships, store merchandise, maintain and supply
ships, provide space for sailors and merchants to meet, and administrative activities.
The construction techniques were the most advanced in the Hellenistic and Roman world.
Construction began by installing artificial “islands” in the middle of the sea. The
first “island” was for the large pier southwest of the outer basin. It was built by
submerging rectangular wooden forms (14 x 7 m) side by side; the forms were built on
shore according to standard Roman techniques. The bottoms of the rafts were filled with
special marine concrete known from Etruscan building tradition (Vitruvius, On
Architecture 2.6). After the concrete hardened, the raft was floated into place and
fastened using metal chains, before being sunk to the harbor bottom, where it was filled
with rock and the same underwater concrete used for the bottoms. More forms were added
until the pier was completed; a stone rampart strengthened the mole’s outer side and
reinforced the wooden frame. A second artificial island was built in the middle of the
long pier. A third was built at the pier’s northern extremity, although its construction
technique was slightly different from the other islands and its construction took
longer. A sea wall or breakwater was built about 30 m from the edge of the pier,
absorbing a storm’s force and protecting the pier. The harbor opening was relatively
narrow; it could be closed with iron chains pulled taut with the help of giant pulleys.
On either side of the entrance were high towers with navigational helps to guide ships
(War 1.413; Ant. 15.338). A tall lighthouse at the extremity of the western pier (the
Drusus tower?) served as a guide to the port’s location for ships at sea (Ant. 15.336;
Vann 1991). Josephus describes a series of vaults on the long pier for the sailors and
their merchandise, which surrounded the port like a kind of a crown (War 1.413; Ant.
15.337). Since the purpose of the port was to generate income from trade to Italy,
Egypt, and the east by providing services to ships, especially during the winters, it
seems likely that commercial activity took place in the buildings on the piers. The view
that storerooms north of the inner basin and west of the temple area were also used for
this purpose has been rejected, since they are late Roman (Oleson et al. 1989-1994;
Raban 1995). Some coins of Agrippa I read, “Caesarea, which is near the port called
Augustus.” A. Raban suggests, on the basis of historical, numismatic, and archaeological
evidence that the city and the port were separate entities from the time of Herod
through the first century CE (Raban 1992). He argues that the Herodian vaults south of
the rocky outcrop and the temple, excavated in the 1970s, provided storage for
Caesarea’s own port, not for the port Sebastos. D. Barag has examined the numismatic
data, numbering a series of coins from 42/43 CE to 81/83 CE and dividing them into two
groups: coins with the name Caesarea, and coins with known maritime symbols of the port
Sebastos. He explains the administrative and legal differences between the two entities
on the basis of the port being used as the Roman army’s naval base and thus the location
of the Roman administrative headquarters of Judea. In the Byzantine period, however,
these seem to have been transferred to the city itself, and the distinction between port
and city was lost. Impressive remains of the Roman and Byzantine urban administration of
the city have been found south of the Crusader city, so it is obvious they were not
located within the crowded complex of the port. Nevertheless, Barag suggests that the
administrative and legal division was instituted in 6 CE (though Josephus hints at it in
connection with Herod’s rule) and that the division was in effect until after the first
revolt, when it became a colony (Barag 1996). Whatever the answer to that question, the
port functioned as originally intended for a relatively short period of time; the local
population could not support the costs of the operation and the maintenance of the port
without state help. If Raban’s and Barag’s suggestions prove correct—that after 70 CE
the status of the port changed from being an independent imperial port to a regular city
port—it is clear why the port no longer functioned as Herod had wished. The port,
however, operated at a reduced level until the third century CE, and there was even an
attempt to revitalize it under Anastasius (500 CE), though it never regained its earlier
magnificence. At the outset, the city’s importance and urban form was the result of its
proximity to the large modern port, but later the city’s power and importance came from
its political and national position, while the port declined (Hohlfelder 1992).
Throughout the late Roman period the western portion of the port sank, resulting in many
shipwrecks from the end of the first century CE onward. Josephus says that Herod built a
temple in the center of the city, which could be seen from afar by those traveling to
the city, with impressive statues of Roma and Augustus inside (War 1.414; Ant. 15.339).
Philo refers to this as the Temple to Augustus (Legat. 305). Excavations in the area,
mainly by the University of Maryland under the leadership of K. Holum, have attempted to
uncover as much as possible of the Herodian temple, below the ruins of later Byzantine
and Crusader churches, especially a large Byzantine building (late-fifth century CE),
built in memory of Procopius, who was martyred in the city in the third century CE. The
Herodian temple was built on an elevated foundation (46 x 29 m). West of it, an
extension of the temple compound was built, also elevated, so as to connect the temple
to the eastern part of the port. The excavators point to three types of early Roman
evidence: pottery from the end of the first century BCE; a collection of architectural
items, most of them Corinthian, which permit reconstruction of the height of the temple
(ca 21 m); and various foundation walls. They suggest the temple and its pronaos faced
west, with the cella or naos to the east. In many ways it was similar to the temple to
Augustus and Roma built in Sebaste during the same period, although differences from
that building have led to debates over the exact nature of the Caesarea temple (Kahn
1996; Holum 1999). Aerial photos from the beginning of the twentieth century disclose
two lines of city walls beyond the crusader city. The outer wall is Byzantine, while the
inner line is most likely Herodian. The northern gate with the round towers has been at
the center of a debate between scholars: a few date the wall to the Hellenistic period,
while the majority believes that the towers do not predate the Herodian period.
Excavations south of the Roman theater uncovered another round tower, connected to the
outer face of the fortification wall, confidently dated to the Herodian period. It was
changed to a rectangular tower during the first century CE, and this slightly altered
the direction of the wall to the east (Porath 2000). This tower both clarifies the
reconstruction of the Herodian city wall and is the near-final word on dating the round
towers on the northern line of the city wall. They are Herodian, not Hellenistic.
Josephus mentions that the city streets were laid out equally spaced from one another;
below street level was a state-of-the-art drainage system (War 1.413; Ant. 15.340). The
excavations, mainly in the 1990s in the southwest section of the city, uncovered more
Roman and Byzantine remains on the same meticulous urban plan. So far, the main Herodian
finds are the amphitheater/hippodrome and the theater, so it is still unclear what the
Herodian city plan was like. It seems the southern part of the Herodian city linked
buildings for entertainment with Herod’s own palace in a complex relationship (Porath
1996). Josephus says that south of the port and behind it there was an amphitheater that
accommodated a large crowd, from which one enjoyed a wonderful view of the sea (War
1.415; Ant. 15.341). The ceremonies celebrating the dedication of the city in 10 BCE
took place in this building, accompanied by competitive games and shows (Ant. 16.136).
Games continued to be held there every fourth year, later being known as the “Isactium
of Caesarea” (Schwartz 1992). Earlier attempts to locate this building had identified an
amphitheater northeast of the Herodian city (unexcavated) and the eastern hippodrome
near the Byzantine wall. Various solutions to reconcile Josephus’ account with the
apparently contradictory archaeological data had been attempted. In the 1990s, however,
a magnificent entertainment building was uncovered in the southwest part of the city,
which confirms neatly Josephus’ description (Porath 1995). It is located between an
elevated kurkar ridge—on the northern end of which the foundation for the temple to
Augustus and Rome was anchored—and the shoreline to the west. An artificial moat
separated the building from the ridge. The long, narrow, U-shaped building (315 x 64 m)
runs parallel to the shoreline, with a flat arena in the center. The east wing and the
curved section at the south are well preserved, with 12 rows of kurkar seats. The width
of the arena is roughly 50 m, though the western arm has been almost completely
destroyed. What has been preserved shows that it was lower than the eastern arm, with
only three to five rows of seats. Various estimates suggest the building could hold
between 7,000 and 13,000 spectators, the differences being connected with how to
reconstruct the western seats. The pottery in its foundation trenches dates the building
to the time of Herod. Part of the building continued in use until the third century CE;
its gradual abandonment seems to have prompted the construction of the large hippodrome
east of the city, dated to the second or third century CE. The Herodian structure was
gradually filled with rubbish in the late Roman and Byzantine period, then used for
private Byzantine dwellings. There was not such a sharp distinction in the past as there
is today between the various terms (theater, amphitheater, hippodrome) for different
entertainment buildings. Even if Josephus used the term amphitheater, he did not mean to
deny that horse races might have taken place. The structure was likely used for multiple
purposes, so the events which took place in it might, in other cities, have been held in
different buildings (Porath 1995). The northern end of the building revealed several
construction phases (Patrich 2001a): Herodian, Trajanic, and Severan. Patrich discovered
the Herodian carceres (starting gates); he suggested they were dismantled at the end of
the Second-Temple Period. A perimeter wall was built and the arena changed into a very
large open area without any animal pens or boxes. Patrich suggests this was where Titus
held the celebrations when over 2,500 Jews were executed (War 7.37-38) and where, at the
end of the first revolt, prisoners were held for the winter (War 7.20). He argues, based
on changes to the hippodrome and its connection with Hellenistic and Roman
entertainment, that the building was used as intended until the middle of the third
century CE, though in the third century it was used only as an amphitheater, not for
chariot races. The first structure excavated at Caesarea was the theater, located on the
southern edge of the Herodian city, investigated by the Missione Archeologia Italiana
between 1959 and 1964 (Frova 1966: 57-195; Segal 1995: 64-69). New excavations show that
the theater—the earliest of all the theaters excavated in Israel, southern Syria, and
the Roman province of Arabia—was within the Herodian city. The cavea and its stairways,
the drainage channel (euripus) around the orchestra, and the eastern hall date from the
Herodian period. The orchestra floor was plastered and decorated with painted
geometrical patterns to imitate marble. The back wall of the stage (scaenae frons) was
built according to Hellenistic style. A few delicate architectural elements have
survived from the Herodian period, using molded plaster motifs over stone. Ceramic oil
lamps from the Herodian period have also been found. The theater continued in use until
the fourth, possibly fifth, century CE, filling different roles; its present character
stems from the late-second or early-third century CE. Josephus mentions a palace built
by King Herod. Near the theater and hippodrome a large reef (ca 100 x 55 m) extends into
the sea. Nineteenth century explorers already knew the archaeological remains on this
reef, which centered on a rock-cut pool. Excavations in 1976 by E. Netzer and I. Levine
for the Hebrew University theorized that this may have been the Herodian palace and that
the pool may not have been a fish tank, as suggested by some scholars, but a swimming
pool. Excavations in the 1990s by E. Netzer, K. L. Gleason, and B. Burrell confirmed
these views (Netzer 1996). The pool was in the middle of a peristyle courtyard and was
used for washing and swimming. A rectangular base in the center of the pool probably
supported a statue or pillar. Indentations around the pool about 80 cm deep were
probably used for shrubs and ornamental trees. The palace’s entrance was on the
northeast, with a stairway leading up to a second floor. The constant beating of the sea
destroyed much of the reef; only the east wing could be excavated. It contained five
rooms, the large central one being the triclinium. A stepped structure northeast of the
building, close to the entrance, was a ritual bath, according to Netzer, the first in
Caesarea. The palace underwent numerous later alterations, possibly during the period of
the Roman governors or Herod Agrippa I (41-44 CE). Following Netzer’s work, the IAA
carried out more excavations farther to the east. Netzer had already suggested that
extra wings to the palace had been built at the end of Herod’s reign, at the same time
as the theater and the hippodrome (see below for a different opinion). Inscriptions on
statue bases from within the palace area mention several Roman governors from the early
fourth century CE. The palace apparently continued to be used as a praetorium throughout
the entire late Roman period (Gleason et al. 1998; Netzer 2001: 117-22). Caesarea fell
under the rule of Archelaus after Herod’s death; it is curious that when Josephus
mentions this fact, he refers to “Straton’s Tower” (War 2.97; Ant. 17.320). After
Archelaus’ exile and the establishing of the province of Judea, Caesarea became its
capital. At this point, if not already in the Herodian period (Richardson 2002: chapter
5) the urban layout of the city was determined, and it underwent much development and
construction. A Roman administrative district was built south of the main city in an
area not previously settled, which extended from the hippodrome south to the
Roman-Byzantine city wall, and from the theater to the seashore. It included the
governor’s palace, a large central colonnaded court (65 x 42 m), with its northern wing
(65 x 22 m) and southern wing (42 x 22 m). Next to the southern wing was another open
area, which bordered another wing comprising offices and chambers. Contrary to Netzer’s
opinion—based on his excavations of the palatial ruins on the reef—that this secondary
palace was also Herodian, Porath claims that the secondary palace was part of a large
collection of buildings built under the governors, which continued to be used until the
fourth century CE. This project probably included a small temple dedicated to the
emperor Tiberius, one stone of which was found in secondary use in the theater in 1961.
Its Latin inscription refers to “the Tiberieum built by Pontius Pilate …” (Frova 1966:
217-220; Lehmann and Holum 2000: 67-70, no. 63). It was probably in this area that the
apostle Paul was held in prison and met with Festus and Agrippa II (Acts 23:31 - 24:32).
A new administrative quarter was built in the fourth century CE north of the governor’s
palace, in an area excavated by Patrich. The governor’s palace was then used for
dwelling quarters and storage areas. West of the rectangular tower, beside the southern
city wall, a first to the third century CE cemetery was uncovered; most of its burials
were in shaft tombs, with a burial memorial at their head. Later, the cemetery was
filled with dirt and the city wall moved 30 m south (Porath 2000). In Porath’s opinion,
the palace and its wings were expanded after Herod’s period and became the praetorium
(governor’s residence). At the end of the first century CE, apparently in connection
with Caesarea being made into a colony, another administrative quarter was built east
and north of the Herodian hippodrome but south of the port to accommodate the financial
management of the province. According to Porath, this administrative district was built
after Rome elevated the governors’ rank, so that they came only from among Senators. The
new administrative district met these needs and became the main administrative center
during the Byzantine period (Patrich 2000). Excavations east of the hippodrome uncovered
magnificent living quarters, most likely a villa, built during the 30s CE and used until
the end of the second century CE, with two living units surrounding a colonnaded
courtyard (Porath 2000). Like every large city, Caesarea needed a regular and dependable
water supply. Caesarea had an elaborate system of aqueducts dated to the Roman and
Byzantine periods (Porath 2000). The first century CE upper-level aqueduct was built on
arches from about 6 km northeast of the city, after crossing the marshy land to the
east. In order to cross the kurkar ridge running parallel to the shoreline, a tunnel
with a series of openings was hewn over a distance of about half a kilometer, after
which it turned straight south to the city. Josephus does not mention the aqueduct in
his detailed description of the Herodian city, so it is impossible to know whether it
was already built in Herod’s time or later during the first century CE, either under the
governors or Vespasian. Later, a second high-level aqueduct was added alongside the
first, to increase the supply of water. Nine inscriptions on the arches refer to units
of the Roman army—the Sixth, Tenth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Legions—under Hadrian
(first third of the second century CE). Scholars are divided on whether this
construction relates to Hadrian’s visit in 130 CE or to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132-135
CE (Lehmann and Holum 2000: 71-77, no. 45-54). At the same time the aqueduct was
extended to the northeast and was used for other installations outside the city. Later
still, the aqueduct served Shuni (Maiumas), established during the third century CE. The
high-level aqueduct was in use for almost 600 years. It subsequently served other
purposes: a branch veered off to Tel Taninim, north of Caesarea, and to Tel Tadvira,
both small Byzantine sites. A third low-level aqueduct brought water to Caesarea from
Nahal Taninim. Since the water level was 2 m below Caesarea, it was necessary to build a
pair of large dams that created an enclosed lake of 5,000 dunams (1250 acres), called
the Kabara Swamp. The dams raised the water level enough to allow it to flow to
Caesarea. Archaeological and restoration work has been carried out, mainly on the
western dam, and several early flourmills have been uncovered. That work revealed the
dam’s construction techniques, such as the use of strong wooden frames, some of which
were found in situ. These excavations revealed yet another aqueduct east of the dam and
probably predating it, which supplied the lower level aqueduct. Its outlet, source, and
dating are unresolved; it could be that in the early stages of its construction the
architects tested its elevation in relation to Caesarea before building the dam and the
lower aqueduct (Peleg 2002). Josephus and Philo describe Pontius Pilate’s attempt to
introduce military standards bearing the image of the Emperor, and later votive shields
in his honor, into Jerusalem. This caused great indignation and a violent uprising among
the Jews. Only after Pilate realized that the people were ready to give up their lives
over the entire matter did he have the objects transferred to Caesarea (Philo, Legat.
305; War 1.169-74; Ant. 18.55-59). As this implies, Caesarea was a pagan not a Jewish
enclave; it supplied one of the auxiliary units of the Roman army, while another was
from Sebaste (War 2.223-27; Ant. 19:365-66). Agrippa I, the last of the Jewish kings to
rule over the city (Ant. 19.351), seems to have resided in the city permanently (Ant.
19.331). The coins from years eight and nine of his reign—his last two years—were minted
in Caesarea, as shown by their inscriptions and symbols (Meshorer 2001: 98-102). Agrippa
was generous to the city (Ant. 19.359), and arranged for plays to be performed in the
Emperor’s honor. Agrippa’s death in 43/44 CE is well known (Ant. 19.343-50; Acts 12:
21-23; Schwartz 1990: 145ff). Josephus says that at the height of celebrations in the
theater, Agrippa felt a sudden pain in his stomach and was taken to his palace in
critical condition. When he died five days later, the reaction of the non-Jewish
populations of Caesarea and Sebaste was one of joy. Josephus recounts how soldiers
installed images of Agrippa’s daughters, taken from the palace, on the roofs of brothels
and insulted them; he refrains from describing the abuse in detail (Ant. 19.356-59).
Claudius sought revenge on those who had insulted his friend Agrippa, and determined to
transfer the cavalry units of the city to Pontus; they appeased him, however, and
retained the right to remain in Judea. Josephus goes on to suggest that these very men
were responsible for the outbreak of the first revolt twenty-two years later (Ant.
19.360-66). Some have suggested that the soldiers’ hostility was due to Agrippa’s
policies favoring Jewish over gentile soldiers (Kasher 1990: 242). The event illustrates
well the tensions between the Jewish and pagan residents of Caesarea. These tensions
were a primary aspect of the city during the first century CE. In 60 CE a legal debate
broke out over the nature of the city: Jews claimed that from the city’s inception it
was Jewish, since Herod, its founder, was Jewish; non-Jews claimed that it was not
Jewish, that Herod had built the city specifically for non-Jews, which was why it
included pagan temples and buildings for public entertainment. The confrontation quickly
turned violent, so that the government had difficulty keeping order. The procurator
Felix sent envoys from each side to Nero. Josephus’ account implies that Caesarea’s
Jewish population was wealthy and well established, while the rest of the population was
supported by military units from Syria (War 2.266-70; Ant. 20.173-78). This
confrontation was an unusual example of Jews, like other ethnic groups, claiming special
rights in a city (Levine 1974a; Kasher 1977; Kloppenborg 2000). The wealth and position
of the minority Jewish population was sufficient to argue for preferential treatment,
wealth gained perhaps at the expense of other citizens and possibly with the help of
Jewish residents in Narbata. In the end only the pagan residents within Caesarea stood
against them; ultimately the Greek population was given seniority and the right to rule
the city (War 2.284-85 dates this event to 66 CE, while Ant. 20.182-84 dates it to the
transition between Felix and Festus in 61 or 62 CE). The decision failed to reduce
tensions in the city; indeed it fueled further mistrust. In May 66 CE more bloodshed
broke out. According to Josephus, Caesarea’s synagogue bordered land belonging to a
non-Jew; in spite of repeated entreaties and Jewish attempts to purchase the land at an
inflated price the owner refused to sell and built new workshops that further hindered
access to the synagogue. After younger elements of the Jewish community tried to remove
the buildings by force, the Jewish leaders attempted to bribe the governor Florus to
have them removed. Florus accepted the money but did nothing, departing instead for
Sebaste, apparently to absolve himself of the anticipated bloodshed. The next morning, a
Sabbath, a non-Jewish occupant sacrificed birds near the synagogue’s entrance. A riot
erupted and blood was shed. The Jews fled to Narbata with their torah scroll, and sent
envoys to complain to Florus in Sebaste, but he imprisoned them for removing the torah
scroll (War 2.284-92). This puzzling offence may hint that pagan residents considered
the scroll holy, a kind of civic guardian (Levine 1975: 168). Josephus also reports
another slaughter of Caesarea’s Jews in 66 CE, when 20,000 were killed. The rest of its
Jews were taken prisoner and kept in the navy’s armory (War 2.457), most likely part of
the port Sebastos, resulting in bloody confrontations between Jews and non-Jews
throughout various cities in the land of Israel. It is generally accepted that the
Jewish quarter was in the northwest part of the city, part of the earlier Straton’s
Tower. A synagogue from the Byzantine period has been discovered there, perhaps built in
the same area as an earlier one. Rabbinic sources later refer several times to “the
Maradata synagogue” (the synagogue of the revolt), recalling the events of 66 CE (Levine
1975a: 40-45). Following these events and the consequent absence of Jews in the city,
Caesarea became a strong Roman military base during the first revolt. In need of rest
and recuperation after the intense battles of 67 CE, Vespasian and two of his legions
turned to the city; since it was predominantly Greek, it welcomed them with open arms
(War 3.409-13; 4.88). After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Titus went to
Caesarea to rest, together with all the plunder and prisoners he had captured (War
7.20). He celebrated the birthday of his brother Domitian by putting 2,500 Jewish
prisoners to death as part of the celebrations (War 7.37-38). The prisoners may have
been both held and executed in the hippodrome. The Jewish population of Caesarea
gradually recovered, becoming dominant in the third century CE, alongside a large
Samaritan population that developed at about the same time (Levine 1975; Pummer 2000).
Caesarea became a colony after 70 CE (Pliny, Nat. 5.13,69), its name being preserved on
coin inscriptions from that period: Col(onia) prima Fl(avia) Aug(usta)
Caesariensis/Caesarea. The upgrading of its status resulted in significant changes to
the city’s character. These included the addition of the administrative district
discussed above, as suggested by Patrich, and a change in status of the port Sebastos,
so as to be more closely connected to the city, a change that contributed—as Raban and
Barag suggest—to the decline in the operations of the port. Caesarea is mentioned in the
context of early Christianity, especially with respect to the conversion of Cornelius,
to whom Peter had been sent (Acts 10:1-18), presented as the first conversion from among
Gentiles. The Christian community in the city grew, especially from the third century CE
onward, and is known mainly because Origen and Eusebius lived and taught there through
the third and fourth centuries CE (Ascough 2000). |