Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Rome, the Greek World, and the EastVolume 3: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East$

Fergus Millar, Hannah M. Cotton, and Guy MacLean Rogers

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780807830307

Published to North Carolina Scholarship Online: September 2014

DOI: 10.5149/9780807876657_millar

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.northcarolina.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of North Carolina Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CSO for personal use (for details see http://www.northcarolina.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 21 June 2018

The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Relations *

The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Relations *

(p.164) Chapter Eight The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Relations *
Rome, the Greek World, and the East

Fergus Millar

University of North Carolina Press

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter explores the Roman coloniae of the Near East and the impact of Roman rule. It discusses the complex stages of Roman colonisation in the Near East: the settlement of a veteran colonia at Berytus under Augustus; the three coloniae on the borders or the heart of Judaea: Ptolemais, Caesarea, and Aelia Capitolina; and the widespread grants of colonial status during the reign of Septimius Severus.

Keywords:   coloniae, Near East, colonisation, Berytus, Augustus, Judaea, Ptolemais, Caesarea, Aelia Capitolina, colonial status


“The history of Roman colonisation is the history of the Roman state”: so Ernst Kornemann, in his standard article on Roman coloniae.1 The following survey of the coloniae which the emperors created between the late first century B.C. and the middle of the third century A.D. in the Fertile Crescent—or, on a different definition, in those provinces of the Roman Empire where both Greek and various Semitic languages were spoken—cannot of course contribute directly to an understanding of the earlier phases of that history. But it does very vividly reflect the rapid progression in the nature of the “colonising” process itself, from the one unquestionable military colonia of the Augustan period, Berytus, with its wide territory extending over the Mount Lebanon chain into the Bekaa valley, to the three coloniae of the first and second centuries A.D., all in or on the borders of Judaea, to a wholly new phase in the Severan period and the following decades, when the title colonia was granted to towns all over the region, including the new province of Mesopotamia, and thus came into use almost as far east as the Tigris.

(p.165) But the process of colonisation, or of the conferment of the title colonia, was also one of many forms of intervention by Rome in the social structures and communal identities of a region long since Hellenised, but where a variety of other ethnic identities, most of them extremely difficult for us to characterise without distortion, were still very important factors.2 Roman colonisation naturally introduced a new element into this already complex scene, and in this sense it can be perceived from a quite different angle, not as part of the history of Rome but as an element in the cultural history of the Fertile Crescent. Of all the Roman coloniae of this region, only one, Berytus, with its hinterland which was later separated off as the colonia of Heliopolis,3 represented a substantial island of Romanisation, of Latin language and culture, and of Roman law, which was to last into the late Empire. But this colonia too was established in the context of an already-existing Greek, or Graeco-Phoenician, city, and inevitably took on many of the roles and forms of public life associated with a Greek city. The same was a fortiori true of the others, all of which, with one exception, show a profound continuity with the Greek cities which preceded them. The exception is Aélia Capitolina, founded by Hadrian on the ruins of Jerusalem, destroyed as a Jewish city in the great revolt of A.D. 66, and now recreated as a pagan city after the Bar Kochba war of A.D. 132–35. But even Aelia, like the other coloniae of this region, and unlike almost all those of Italy, Africa, and Europe, continued to mint coins until the mid-third century.4 For minting was a normal, if not universal, characteristic of cities in this region, and nearly every colonia, real or titular, acted likewise. The rank of colonia was to become, among other things, simply another status, like that of metropolis, to which a city might aspire. In contemporary literature or documents, depending on the context, the title colonia might deserve mention, or might not. The latter, for instance, was the case when a boxer put up an inscription at Aphrodisias in Caria in about A.D. 165 to record his world-wide victories. When he lists the places in the Syrian region where his victories had been won, his words represent a wholly Greek world, in which Roman colonisation is invisible, just as is (p.166) the non-Greek element: “at Damascus, the men's pancration [all-in wrestling] twice, at Berytus the men's pancration, at Tyre the men's pancration, at Caesarea Stratonos the men's pancration, at Neapolis of Samaria the men's pancration, at Scythopolis the men's pancration, at Gaza the men's pancration, at Caesarea Panias the men's pancration twice, at Hieropolis the men's pancration….5 Berytus and Caesarea were already coloniae (and, as it happens, Damascus, Tyre, Neapolis, and Gaza were later to gain the same status).

That was not, however, the whole story. The impact of Roman rule was reflected, among other things, by the entry not only into Greek but into Semitic languages of a long list of Latin terms, among them colonia and its cognates.6 Some of these will be considered further below, above all in connection with Palmyra and Edessa. But it may be instructive to mention here, as an example of the complex cultural context into which these Roman colo- niae, or nominal coloniae, were inserted, two inscriptions, one from Apamea and one from Palmyra. In Apamea, in the reign of Hadrian, we find the peculiar institutions of the colonia of Berytus reflected in an inscription honouring an actor: among other distinctions he was ἐV KOλωVείᾳ BηρύTῳ TεTειμημέVOV σεξβερὰTι‎ (AE 1976,686). The term is not other-wise attested in Greek transliteration, and the form in which it is given is presumably intended to represent the Latin ablative sexviratu. Then, from a century later, there is a Palmyrene bust of the first half of the third century, now in the Louvre, which represents a man with a Greek-Latin name, who is a citizen not of Palmyra itself but of the colonia of Berytus.7 The subject is identified in a (p.167) bilingual inscription, in Greek on the left and Palmyrene on the right, as follows:

MάρKOς 'ΙOύλιOς / MάξιμOς / AρισTείδης, / KόλωV / BηρύTιOς, / παTήρ ΛOυ/Kίλλης γυ/VαιKOς Περ/TίVαKOς


The Latin word colonus has thus become a pseudo-Greek word, KόλωV, and from there has been transliterated into Palmyrene as an intelligible form of identification of a person from the colonia of Berytus. Similar transliterated forms were already in use for the institutions of Palmyra itself, or very soon would be, as we will see (text to nn. 158–66). But, as we will also see, allusions to cities as coloniae and to their inhabitants as preserving the relevant status are very rare after the third century; it remains unclear whether this is because such statuses had genuinely ceased to be relevant; or because the city coinages of the Greek East had ceased in the second half of the third century,8 or because the “epigraphic habit,” though it had not ceased, had greatly declined. Moreover, Palmyrene, a language which is known only through inscriptions, and whose vocabulary is exceptionally rich in loan-words, ceased to be inscribed soon after the reconquest by Aurelian.9

It is therefore all the more striking that even in the late fifth century, in a period when to all appearances the status of colonia had long ceased to be of any importance, we still find preserved in the Babylonian Talmud a reflection of the possibility which had existed in the early Empire, of asking the emperor to grant the rank of colonia to a city. For the treatise Avodah Zara (on pagan worship) contains a tale of an emperor called “Antoninus” (conceivably Caracalla) saying to “Rabbi” that he wishes “to make Tiberias a colonia” — TT'BYD ṬBRY' QLNY'.10 This elevation, so far as we know, did not in fact (p.168) occur, and the story may very likely be legend. But the Severan period was exactly that in which a whole series of places not far away—Heliopolis, Tyre, Sebaste, Emesa, Sidon, Petra, Bostra, followed in the midcentury by Neapo- lis and Philippopolis—did gain this status. It had been something to which a middle-rank town like Tiberias could then reasonably have aspired.

That aspiration, whether a historical reality in itself or not, reflects the third, final, and most complex stage of Roman “colonisation” in the Near East. The three stages can be regarded as quite distinct: firstly, the settlement of a veteran colonia at Berytus under Augustus; secondly, the three coloniae of, or on the borders of, Judaea, namely Ptolemais, Caesarea, and Aelia Capitolina, founded between the mid-first and mid-second century A.D.; and, thirdly, the widespread grants of the status of colonia in the Severan period and the mid-third century, extending far into the newly conquered territory of Mesopotamia. The successive phases will be discussed in order here; given the importance and novelty of the nature of “colonisation” under Severus, that period will be discussed separately from the remaining period up to the mid-third century.

Berytus and Its territorium; Heliopolis

Alone of all the coloniae to be considered here, Berytus belongs in the only major phase of organized veteran settlement outside Italy in Roman history, the age of Caesar and Augustus.11 Before that period organised colonial settlement outside Italy was almost unknown: the colonia of Narbo in southern Gaul (118 B.C.) was indeed the only example of a pre-Caesarian provincial colony which was successfully established and survived as a formal entity. After the reign of Augustus, actual coloniae, involving the establishment of settlers and the formation of a new city constitution, can be found; but they are not common, and it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish such a settlement from the mere conferment of the title colonia on an existing city, with some or all of the associated rights. An extra complication is added to the question by the fact that one of our best and most used items of evidence on the formal and legal character of coloniae comes not only from the main (p.169) period of the creation of nominal coloniae, but from a citizen of one of them, Domitius Ulpianus from Tyre (text to n. 131 and following it).

Berytus, however, represents a quite different case.12 Strabo's contemporary account of its settlement, though not entirely clear as to the precise extent of its territorium, provides all the essentials: “But though Berytus was razed to the ground by Tryphon, it has now been restored by the Romans; and it received two legions, which were settled there by Agrippa, who also added to it much of the territory of Marsyas as far as the Orontes river.”13 Of the history of Berytus as a Hellenised Phoenician city in the late Hellenistic and then Roman republican periods very little can be known; but Strabo records, just before the passage quoted above, that robbers established on Mount Lebanon had been able to ravage both Berytus and Byblos (16, 2, 18 [755]); and the coinage of Berytus indicates that the city had been included in Antonius' grant of the coast of Phoenicia to Cleopatra, made perhaps in 37/6 B.C.14 The evidence is sufficient to make clear that Berytus will have shared in the generally disturbed history of the region in the mid-first century B.C.,15 without providing any conclusive reason why the one Roman colonia should have been placed there rather than anywhere else. But Strabo's words suggest a military purpose, in relation to the unsubdued mountain zone behind; or rather two mountain zones, the chain of Mount Lebanon and to the east that of Anti-Lebanon, with the Marsyas, or Bekaa valley, and the sources of the Orontes, in between.

Jerome's Chronicle offers a firm date for the foundation of the colonia, as of the colonia of Patras, 15 B.C.16 Since Strabo (above) attributes the foundation to Agrippa, and this was a period when he was present in the Syrian region, the dating can be accepted. It is not impossible, however, in the case of Patras (p.170) that a settlement of legionaries after Actium was followed only later by the formal creation of a new colonia, which incorporated a substantial number of inhabitants of the surrounding region.17 If that sequence is valid, which is not wholly certain, the same may perhaps have applied to Berytus. But if some slight uncertainty prevails as to the date, the essential fact that this was a genuine veteran colonia is secure. It is consonant with that fact that both its foundation by the favour of Augustus continued to be recalled, and that Berytus was regarded as possessing what was later at least described as the ius Italicum. So Ulpian writes in the first book of his de censibus: Sed et Berytensis colonia in eadem provinda (Syria Phoenice, as it had become in Ulpian's time), Augusti beneficiis gratiosa, et (ut divus Hadrianus in quadam oratione ait) Augustana colonia, quae ius Italicum habet (Dig. 50, 15, 1, 1). Ulpian's quite flowery Latin is not free from obscurity; but in the context he clearly means (at least) that the new colonia paid no tributum.

Effectively nothing is known of the urban character of late Hellenistic Berytus, and we do not know whether or not a fundamental restructuring of the urban plan will have taken place in the case of a colonia established on the site of an existing city. The ancient rituals for the foundation of a colonia are indeed represented, along with the signa of the legions V Macedonia and VIII Augusta, on coins issued by Berytus from the reign of Augustus onwards.18 But coins representing a founder ploughing with an ox and a cow, while they may be records of an actual historical event, the marking out of a new boundary for Berytus in 15 B.C., cannot be assumed to be so. Their significance may be purely symbolic. But, while we also do not have any evidence for an urban restructuring of Berytus to compare with Josephus' account of Herod's refoundation of Stratōnos Pyrgos as the new city of Caesarea,19 we do know that Herod's munificence in providing public buildings for cities in the Syrian region embraced Berytus also: “Thus he provided gymnasia for Tripolis, Damascus and Ptolemais, a wall for Byblos, (p.171) halls (exedras), porticoes, temples and market-places (agoras) forBerytus and Tyre, theatres for Sidon and Damascus, an aqueduct for Laodicea on the sea, baths, sumptuous fountains and colonnades, admirable alike for their architecture and their proportions, for Ascalon.”20 It is interesting that Josephus, although of course aware that Berytus was a Roman colonia,21 does not see Herod's contribution to public building there as different in kind from that which he made in the case of Greek cities.

The evidence does not in fact allow us to say more than that Berytus, in the imperial period, acquired the normal apparatus of public buildings, adorned with Corinthian columns, which characterised the more important provincial cities. The fragmentary archaeological and architectural traces recovered from beneath the modern city confirm this, without proving that the city was distinctively Roman in appearance, or different from the surrounding Greek cities.22

The munificence of Herod was followed by that of his grandson Agrippa I. But here perhaps we can see reflected the particular status and particular cultural character of the place. For Agrippa, as well as building a theatre, provided an amphitheatre, something not unknown, but certainly not typical, in Greek cities,23 and then laid on there gladiatorial shows involving 1,400 condemned criminals.24 The gladiatorial show was one of the most distinctive Roman importations into the communal life of the Greek East, and this report represents one of the earliest items of evidence for its intrusion there;25 it is perhaps not an accident that the shows took place, in a newly built amphitheatre, in a Roman colonia.

We cannot be equally sure that there was anything distinctively Roman about the benefactions of Agrippa's son, Agrippa II, in the reign of Nero. He too is recorded as having built a theatre (a new one, or rebuilding the existing one?), and having put on lavish shows; but he also distributed both grain and oil, the latter surely more characteristic of popular expectations in a Greek city. Beyond that he adorned the city with statues and “eikones (p.172) which were copies of ancient ones.”26 It is far from clear what this means. Were they copies of classical Greek sculptures (like the statue of Augustus in his temple at Caesarea, modelled on Pheidias' Zeus at Olympia, and the Rõmê modelled on the Hera from Argos)?27 Or something like the bronze statues of figures from Greek mythology, installed in the early second century at the new baths in Apamea on the Orontes?28 Or were these images ones which more specifically recalled the Roman character and origins of the city?

The latter is not impossible. For, while there is every reason to presume that the new colonia incorporated the existing inhabitants of Berytus and its hinterland as far as Anti-Lebanon, and while it is generally characteristic of those Roman coloniae in the Greek East whose epigraphy has been studied that the use of the Greek language steadily reasserted itself,29 it is very distinctive of Berytus that its Roman and Latin character was heavily emphasised from the beginning and remained clearly visible at least until the fourth century. The city's public use of Latin is for instance still embodied in an inscription of A.D. 344, from the base of a statue at Berytus representing Flavius Domitius Leontius, praetorian prefect and consul ordinarius: ordo Berytiorum statuam sumptibus suis ex aere locatam civili habitu dedicavit.30 Without unnecessarily multiplying examples, the public use of Latin there can easily be traced back through the Tetrarchic (CIL III 141657) and Severan31 periods to the second century. It was then, as it seems, that for instance M. Sentius Procu- lus was a decurion and duumvir, and subsequently embarked on an equestrian career before entering the Senate, and being honoured as patronus coloniae with at least two statues, as their bases, inscribed in Latin, attest.32 From the second half of the first century a Latin inscription records the restoration by Agrippa II and Berenice of a building whose name is lost [q]uod vex Herodes, proavos eorum fecerat, adorned with marble and columns (AE 1928, 82).

Yet another Latin inscription comes from an altar dedicated to the Fortuna of the Genius of the Colonia by M. Iulius Avidius from Emesa, who (p.173) was honoured with a corona by the decuriones, apparently at the moment of the centenary of the foundation of the colonia—saeculo c(ondita) c(olonia)—so (see above) in the 80s A.D. (AE 1950, 233). If that is so, it had been not long before that, in the reign of Vespasian, that someone, perhaps the Emperor himself, had erected or restored tabernae, perhaps fronting the forum, and had put up a statue of Liber Pater, [sjignum Libert Patris.33 Given the association, or confusion, of the two, it may well be that this statue is the same as that of Liber Pater's servant Marsyas, which coins of Berytus from the reign of Elagabal represent as standing in front of an arched entrance which may be an entrance of the forum. If so, and of course that remains a speculation, it might have been a deliberate reminiscence of the statue of Marsyas which stood on the edge of the comitium in Rome.34 Marsyas also appears on some of the earlier coins of the colonia. Here as elsewhere, however, the question of what exactly that signified remains open to debate. There is no concrete evidence whatsoever for the common notion that Marsyas specifically denoted the possession of ius Italicum. Servius (ad Aen. 4, 58; cf. 3, 20) believed rather that a statue of Marsyas placed in the forum of a city had indicated that it enjoyed libertas. Veyne argued that Marsyas on city coinages showed no more than a claim to association with Rome; but a clear correlation with colonial status is indeed evident. Beyond that, nothing is certain.35

Given the relatively restricted corpus of inscriptions from Berytus, never collected and hardly likely to be in the foreseeable future, the attestation there of the cults of Roman deities in private dedications (though not on the city coins) is extraordinarily full: Venus Domina and Mercurius Dominus;36 Venus, Mercurius, Apollo, Diana, Mars, Ceres(?), Proserpina in a single dedication, along with the Fortuna of the Colonia and the Fata;37 and above all the ancient and little-known deity, Mater Matuta, whose temple stood on (p.174) the Forum Boarium in Rome.38 The inscription naming this goddess (C/LIII 6680) comes from a place called Der el-Kala in the hills behind Berytus where there was a temple of Zeus Baalmarcod, of which more in a moment.39 The Latin inscription records that an altar was dedicated to Mater Matuta by a lady named Flavia Nicolais (quae et?) Saddane, ex responso Deae Iunonis. How a Graeco-Syrian woman, evidently a new citizen, came to subscribe to the cult of Mater Matuta we can only guess. But for the name of such a deity to have been familiar at all implies a profound “Roman” consciousness among at least some of the population. The inscriptions of Berytus and its hinterland are sufficient at least to raise the question (which is a pure speculation) as to whether the eikones imitating ancient models which Agrippa II installed might have been intended as a compliment to the colonia, and have been borrowed from Rome rather than classical Greece.

The inscriptions also serve to put into an intelligible context the early experience of the famous Latin grammarian Valerius Probus, from Berytus: “In the province he had read with agrammatistes certain ancient libelli, for the memory of the antiqui still survived there, and had not yet been erased as it had in Rome.” The period concerned is the first half of the first century A.D.;it remains equally noteworthy that Probus turned finally to his grammatical studies only after long seeking a centurionate and giving up in despair.40 Had he been successful, he would have been another in the series of centurions and primipili, with the tribe Fabia, from Berytus/Heliopolis, as well as common soldiers, attested on Latin inscriptions both locally and abroad.41

It was this very distinctive character of Berytus as a place of Roman culture which was to give it its slowly developing role as the site of a major school of Roman law. To put it in those terms, however, is to go beyond what our evidence for the period up to the fourth century actually says. Nothing at all indeed attests this role until we come to the address of thanks which Gregorius, the later bishop and “wonderworker” (Thaumatourgos), from Neocaesarea in Pontus, addressed to his teacher Origen, probably in the 230s. In (p.175) it he explains that the ambition which had first led him to the Syrian region had been a desire to pursue the study of Roman law, and for that he and his brother had set out for Berytus, “a city somewhat more Roman, and considered a place of instruction in those laws.”42 The reference is not to a “school,” but to Berytus itself as a place of Roman culture, including legal culture. By the end of the century we find Diocletian and Maximian replying to students from the province of Arabia who are engaged on liberalia studia, and especially the pwfessio iuris, and hence are living in civitate Berytensium provinciae Phoenices, to say that they may have exemption from munera until age twenty-four (CJ 10, 50, 1). The view that students from the Greek East could find in Berytus a “Roman” or Latin culture of which legal studies were a prominent part is strikingly confirmed by the verse epitaph from the fourth century of a young man from Colybrassus in Cilicia: “When I journeyed from here to the distinguished city of Berytus for the sake of the Roman Muse and the laws…”43

We need not pursue the story further, or repeat the wellknown allusions by Libanius to the attraction of students of Roman law to Berytus.44 Enough has been said to show that Roman culture was a very distinctive feature of the city into the fourth century. That is not to say, however, that Berytus was ever a zone of purely Roman culture. Franz Cumont's description of Berytus, Heliopolis, and Ptolemais as “Latin islands in the Semitic ocean”45 was indeed both overstated and misleading in a variety of different ways. For at start there is no reason to suppose that the Greekspeaking population of Augustan Berytus was not incorporated in the colonia. As a symbol (if no more) of that continuity, Poseidon, the chief deity of Hellenistic Berytus, reappears in the second and third centuries on the coins of the colonia.46 It is also interesting that the Greek writer Hermippus, an antiquarian from Berytus of the early second century, who wrote among other things a work “On Slaves Who Distinguished Themselves in Paideia,” is described by the Suda as originating “from an inland village.”47 For the possession of an extensive hinterland embracing parts of two mountain ranges and the Bekaa valley is an important (p.176) feature of what colonial Berytus was. But in fact such a Greek writer might easily have come from the city itself. As we would expect, though the coins of the colonia remain (unlike those of some later nominal coloniae·, see below) firmly Latin, as do inscriptions recording votes of the decuriones, private inscriptions from there may be in Greek as well as Latin. The “sea” in which Berytus was an island cannot be described in any simple way as “Semitic.” If “Semitic” is supposed to have some wider cultural or racial connotation, the criteria for its use are obscure, and its employment is potentially misleading. If it has a linguistic sense, which makes it at least susceptible to definition, then it should be conceded that there is not a single Semitic language inscription from the city or its territory in the colonial period, except for one stray Palmyrene one from Harbata in the Bekaa.

That is not to say that there were no non-Graeco-Roman elements to be found in the culture of the region, or no Semitic-language terms embedded in Greek or Latin. A clear example, which is also of considerable importance for understanding Heliopolis (see further below), is presented by the sanctuary of Theos Baalmarcod at Der el-Kala, mentioned above. The meaning of the Semitic name of the god is conveniently supplied by a Greek dedication of the Roman period, where he is addressed as “Lord of dances,”48 corresponding clearly to B'L MRQD. We need not doubt that this is a local cult, taken over and observed by the new population of the colonial period. There is nothing to show how long the cult had already been established there; all that is clear is that the name of the deity is Semitic, and that dedications, in both Greek and Latin were made there under the Empire.49 Similar dedications might be made to Baalmarcod in Berytus itself, and the wording of one of them is of particular interest: I.O.M. Baimarcodi M. Verginius Bassus (centurio) leg. I-III Scyt. vot. sol.50 The appellation Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Balmarcod is repeated elsewhere as I.O.M.B.51

When the Latinspeaking inhabitants came to characterise the god worshipped at the temple at Der el-Kala, they sometimes, it is clear, applied to him grandiose appellations normally used for Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, with his archaic temple on the Capitol in Rome. That in its turn must raise a much wider question. For the same appellations were also used by them, (p.177) far more frequently, for the much better-known deity whose temple was to be found at Heliopolis: Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus. He also is sometimes described in simpler terms, for instance in the inscription of A.D. 115/16 put up at Puteoli by the cultores Iovis Heliopolitani Berytenses qui Puteolis consistunt.52

The question of how we should approach the nature of the Iuppiter of Heliopolis will be considered below. For the moment it is essential to stress that the entire situation, and the relation of the Berytenses to that cult, cannot be understood correctly unless we accept the validity of the case argued by A. H. M. Jones and ultimately refined byJ.-P. Rey-Coquais that, as Strabo clearly states, the Bekaa valley, and with it Heliopolis, was from the beginning part of the territory of Berytus.53 The cult of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus will thus have evolved as one observed primarily by the Latinspeaking (and Romanthinking) coloni of Berytus; and it was in this period that the extraordinary group of temples was built, while the cult of Iuppiter of Heliopolis steadily achieved an empire-wide fame. It was only after two centuries, partially no doubt in recognition of that fame, and of the fact of an urban complex existing around the temples, and certainly as a product of the local tensions engendered by the civil war of 193–96, that Septimius Severus made Heliopolis a separate colonia. The fact is stated with perfect clarity by Ulpian: Est et Heliopolitana (colonia) quae a divo Severo per belli civilis occasionem Italicae coloniae rem publicam accepit.54 The fact that when this status was granted, the newly acquired title, Colonia Iulia Augusta Felix Heliopolis, reflected the settlement of veterans by Augustus two centuries earlier cannot weigh against the clear and irreducible facts. Pliny the Elder, who lists the coloniae of Berytus (Nat. Hist. 5, 38), Ptolemais under Claudius (5, 75) and Caesarea under Vespasian (5, 69), knows Heliopolis only as a topographical item (5, 80). There is no coinage of Heliopolis until the third century, and no epigraphic evidence unambiguously denoting Heliopolis as a colonia until the same period.

The colonia of Heliopolis, as it was in the third century, will be discussed later (text to nn. 120–25 below). It should be accepted beyond all doubt that in the first two centuries Heliopolis was a place (however described), and a rapidly evolving cult centre, in the territory of Berytus. Inscriptions from Heliopolis of this period which refer to the colonia, or to its decuriones (p.178) or magistrates, must therefore be taken as allusions to the city government of Berytus.55 The clearest and best-dated instance of such an allusion is a statue base for M. Licinius Pompenna Potitus Urbanus, sacerdos of I(uppiter) O(ptimus) M(aximus) H(eliopolitanus), granted the equus publicus by Hadrian, and holder of a series of local offices: decurio, pontifex, agonothetes, duumvir quinquennalis, flamen munerarius.56 These offices, and the shows referred to, should be thought of as being those of the colonia of Berytus. In what specific terms we should describe the status of Heliopolis in this period is not clear. Following Rey-Coquais, however, we may note the apparent presence of a pagus Augustus, seemingly making a dedication to the Dea Syria Nilwthe(na) at Niha, a place located southwest of Heliopolis on the other side of the valley.57 Heliopolis was perhaps also a pagus. But whatever was the technical term employed, we can in any case take it that, as Strabo makes clear, veterans were settled in the valley under Augustus. The fact that in the second century some persons, including soldiers, began to record their origo as Heliopolis58 does not prove that the place was already a colonia; rather, its emerging separate identity was a precondition of the grant subsequently made by Septimius Severus.

That emerging identity must have both contributed to and been enhanced by the extraordinary architectural development of the site and the widening fame of the cult. Yet both the chronological sequence of the construction and the sources of initiative (emperor or emperors? The colonial The local population? The cities of the wider Syrian region?) remain almost wholly obscure.59 Even more profound problems, however, attend the question of the origin and nature of the cult or cults of Heliopolis. The name of the place has always suggested an association with Egypt, as already claimed by Lucian (dea Syra 5); and it may indeed derive from the domination of the region by (p.179) the Ptolemies in the third century B.C. But there is only one inscription, and no certain archaeological evidence, to show that there was a cult or construction there in the Hellenistic period.60 The temples there are of the imperial period, from the first century A.D. to the third.

But what of the cult itself? Can we confidently identify, behind the Romanised facade, a local “Semitic” cult, or even, as is now claimed, the cult of a typical “Semitic” triad? That is the claim made in, and already incorporated in the title of, the invaluable and extraordinarily learned work on this subject by Y. Hajjar:61 “Les dieux d'Héliopolis prennent dans les textes épigraphiques et littéraires les noms de Jupiter, Vénus et Mercure ou leurs équivalents grecs selon le cas. Mais il ne fait aucun doute que ces dénomina- tions recouvrent des entités sémitiques avec Hadad, Atargatis et un parédre mineur dont on ignore le nom indigène.”

It will need a little time to demonstrate how frail is the logical basis of this assertion, all too typical of what passes for the history of religion whenever the “Orient,” or the Near East, or anything supposedly “Semitic” comes to be considered. If the assertion were merely that there was a cult on this site in the Hellenistic period, that cannot be denied. For there is precisely one fragmentary inscription of that period, including the words Διὸς ἱερῷ and [εὐσ] έβειαV.‎62 We could then suppose that, as in the case of Der el-Kala, where a cult of Theos Balmarcod was converted into one of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Balmarcod by Latinspeaking Roman veterans, so the cult of “Zeus” (nowhere given any Semitic appellation) at Heliopolis came in the same way to be expressed as that of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus. But those are the terms in which such a change must be described. For in speaking of the identities of ancient deities, we are confronted by logical problems more profound than simply the normal fact that what we can perceive is not these divine entities themselves, but what our sources happen to say about them. For the extra problem with the ancient pagan deities is that they were not “entities”: they did not exist. What existed, and may be accessible to us, were human beliefs and appellations, cult practices and temples. There is a perfectly valid sense in which ancient deities “were,” and can only have been, what people at the time said they were.

If we follow strict logic, the “Semitic” triad of Heliopolis is the purest of (p.180) modern Semitising constructions. In the epigraphy of the Bekaa valley, not a single allusion to Hadad occurs, still less an equation with Zeus or Iuppi- ter. Atargatis is indeed recorded once in the area; not, however, at Heliopolis but in the hills on the opposite side of the valley, in the monumentum of Och- maea at Niha, virgini vati Deae Syr(iae) Nihat(enae), or in Greek παρθέVOς θες ΆTαργάTεις‎, put up by a veteranus named Sex. Allius Iullus (IGLS VI 2929). The contrast with the epigraphy of Heliopolis itself which this inscription presents is extremely important; for in this case a local deity is identified as local, Nihatena, and as the “Syrian Goddess” and (in Greek) as Atargatis. No such identifications are ever made by contemporary documents in relation to the gods of Heliopolis. We are not entitled to assert that Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus was Hadad (or Hadaran); and all the less so because the same Ochmaea (or Hocmaea) is also described at Niha, in another inscription, as virgo dei Hadaranis (IGLS VI 2928). At Niha Atargatis and Hadaran may indeed have been worshipped as a divine couple.

There is in fact at Heliopolis no documentary equation of Venus with any “Semitic” goddess, or of Zeus or Mercurius with any “Semitic” god. But nor, to make confusion worse, is there any real indication that these three deities were conceived of as a triad at all (no “triad” of deities is represented on the third-century coins of the city). There are in fact precisely two inscriptions from Heliopolis, both very fragmentary and heavily restored, where we may read in the one case [Ι.Ο.M., V.,] M., Diis Heliopol(itanis) (IGLS VI 2711), and in the other [I.O.] M., V. M., Diis Heliopol(itanis), where the first M and Κhave not been seen since the early eighteenth century (IGLS VI 2712). Otherwise I(uppiter) O(ptimus) M(axitnus) H(eliopolitanus) is referred to alone on nearly thirty inscriptions;63 or dedications are addressed in Greek to him alone, as Διὶ Ἡλ[ι]OπOλίTῃ or Διὶ μεγ[ίσ] Tῳ ἩλιOπOλίTῃ‎ (IGLS VI 2729; cf. 2728, also 2730). Venus/Aphrodite is much more rarely recorded (2732–33, 2893). Mercurius/Hermes appears more frequently (IGLS VI 2735–38, 2881, 2895–96; 2912?, 2977).

The inscriptional record from Heliopolis itself and the Bekaa valley thus gives not the slightest justification for any notion of a triad; confirms the predominance of the localised luppiter Optimus Maximus who was worshipped, mainly in Latin, by the colonial population; and also attests, if weakly, that Venus and Mercurius, as Roman deities, were also worshipped there. From what is said above, however, it will be clear that the whole context of the evolution of the cults of Heliopolis is that of the territorium of the colonia of (p.181) Berytus. The reflection of the cult in Berytus itself is therefore of crucial importance, in spite of the relatively small harvest of inscriptions from this continuously inhabited city. The immensely learned tabulation and analysis of the relevant inscriptions by Y. Hajjar do indeed offer valuable evidence, and even at first sight offer some support for the notion of a triad. There are in fact precisely two known inscriptions from Berytus where Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus is named along with Venus and Mercurius, and with these alone.64 A further inscription (mentioned above) offers only traces of the M of [I. O.] M [H.], and follows that with Venus and Mercurius, but also with Apollo, Deana [sic], Mars Sergit(ensis?), or Ceres, Proserpina, the Fortuna of the Colonia, and the Fata.65 By contrast, eleven inscriptions from Berytus and the surrounding area refer to I.O.M.H. alone,66 one to Venus Domina, and two to Mercurius Dominus.67 An altar from the Museum of Beirut might at first sight provide evidence for a syncretistic identification of Venus Heliopolitana with the Syrian Goddess / Atargatis. But in fact, as Hajjar himself correctly argues, it shows rather a distinction between the two in the mind of the worshipper. Two inscriptions appear on two sides of the altar:68

θεᾷ ἈTαργάTι / [σ] Ṭ ạ(TίωVOς) ΓεράVωV / ἈρTεμίδι Φωσφόρω …

Veneri He/liopolitanae / et Deae Syriae / Geranensi / Deanae Luciferae

It seems clear that two deities are mentioned in both inscriptions, the Dea Syria / Atargatis and Deana Lucifera / Artemis Phosphoros, while the Latin also names a third, Venus Heliopolitana. Though the description of Berytus as a “Latin island in a Semitic ocean” (text to n. 45 above) is far too simplistic, these inscriptions do indeed attest the complexities of the cultural and religious context into which the colonists were settled. But precisely what is distinctive about this area, marking it out from all other parts of the Roman Near East, is that among the other cultural heritages which were not only still present, but active and evolving, a very strong Latin and Roman element was firmly rooted, both on the coast and in the Bekaa valley. Whatever the nature or antiquity of the Zeus already worshipped at Heliopolis, he now came to be characterised by appellations drawn from those of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus in Rome, and came later to become known throughout the (p.182) Empire as Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus.69 Sometimes, though very rarely indeed, the two other most characteristic deities of Romanised Heli- opolis, Venus and Mercurius, were associated with him.70 But far more often he appears alone. That wider diffusion raises other questions which cannot be discussed here. In this context it is sufficient to emphasise the establishment in Berytus and its extensive territory of a Latinspeaking population of Roman veterans, who worshipped Roman deities, even including a little-known archaic goddess, Mater Matuta, under their Latin names. It was this same context which enabled Valerius Probus to read in Berytus older Latin works which had gone out of fashion in Rome (text to n. 41 above), and which was to give rise to a long-surviving Roman cultural framework, of which the law schools of Berytus were to be an important aspect. It is essential to stress that all our evidence up to the fourth century does indeed present the teaching and learning of Roman law as an aspect of the “rather more Roman” city that Berytus was, and that we should speak of “law schools” rather than of “the law school.” The second of these points is clearly and succinctly expressed in the Expositio totius mundi et gentium of the middle of the fourth century: Berytus civitas valde deliciosa et auditoria legum habens, per quam omnia iudicia Romanorum 〈stare videntur〉.71

In the light of this it must be all the more of a puzzle that the most famous of all Roman jurists, Ulpian, was to come not from Berytus but from the Phoenician-Greek city of Tyre, which had become a nominal colonia only in his own life-time. It is time to turn to the later coloniae of the Roman Near East, beginning with the distinctive group of three on the borders of, or at the heart of, the Holy Land.

Ptolemais, Caesarea, Aelia Capitolina

These three coloniae, recently discussed very well by Benjamin Isaac,72 form a clearly marked-out group, contrasting both with Berytus, on the one hand, and with the much larger group of nominal coloniae of the Severan period, and the following decades, on the other. It seems that all three foundations (p.183) were reflections of local conflicts, involving the Jews and their Roman rulers, and indeed in the latter two cases there is no room for doubt on the matter. In the case of Ptolemais, the earliest of them, a military context, and indeed an actual veteran settlement, is probable, as Isaac has shown. But, perhaps surprisingly, the actual process, or moment, of foundation cannot be located within either of Josephus' two detailed narratives of the period. Indeed, by contrast with Berytus (n. 21 above), Josephus nowhere alludes to either Ptolemais or Caesarea as a coíonia/πOιKία. The fact that Ptolemais' foundation as a colonla (whatever that in practise meant) took place under Claudius (A.D. 41–54) is, however, attested by Pliny the Elder, writing in the 70s.73 As an event, the foundation of the nova colonia is also reflected in a milestone of A.D. 56, on the coast road from Antioch via Berytus to Ptolemais.74 Here too, of course, whatever actual settlement of veterans took place did so in the context of an ancient city, which in this instance had already acquired a Greek dynastic name in the Hellenistic period.75 As “Ptolemais,” or, as it appears on coins of Claudius, ΓερμαVιKεîς‎, it continued to mint Greek coins up to A.D. 51/2, so the colonia belongs in the last years of the reign. Thereafter the coins show the city with its full Latin title Col(onia) Cla(udta) Stab(ilis) Ger(tnanica) Felix Ptol(emais).76

There is also just sufficient evidence from the surrounding area to make clear that veterans actually were settled. An inscription from beside the Roman road running north along the coast reads Imp. Ner. / Caesari / Col. Ptol. / Veter. /, vici Nea Come et Gedru.77 The grammar is far from clear, but the reference (p.184) to veterans is certain, and there is probably an allusion to two different villages, one known by a Greek name and one by a Semitic one. There seems no reason to dispute its identification with Talmudic GDRW / modern Kh. Jidru, southeast of Akko. Also southeast of Akko we have a fragmentary Latin inscription with the words pago and vicinal on separate lines78—enough to suggest the existence of a pagus of settlers here, as at Niha in the Bekaa valley.

Some support, but far from wholly certain, for the idea of an actual settlement of veterans, is offered by the coinage of the city as a colonia; the earliest coins, struck under Nero, name DI-VOS CLAUD and have the normal symbol of the founder with his plough marking out the boundary. Four legionary standards are represented, but no agreement has been reached on the identification of the tiny numbers shown on them.79 It is none the less clear that some actual settlement of veterans took place. But from the very slight evidence for the history of the city as a colonia nothing is really certain except that it continued to mint coins with Latin legends identifying itself as a colonia into the reign of Valerian and Gallienus. There appear, however, to be no Latin inscriptions from the city to illustrate public use of Latin there. The real nature of the social and cultural mix produced by the process of foundation must remain mysterious. But here too we can be reasonably certain that no wholesale removal or disturbance of the existing population took place; the massacre of 2,000 Jews, and the imprisonment of many others, by the Ptolemaeans in A.D. 66 must be seen as reflections of long-standing communal tensions, as they were in other cities of the region.80 On any construction the foundation of a colonia here and at this moment remains a puzzle. It is true, as Isaac points out, that there had been violent intercommunal clashes between Jews and Samaritans in the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus (probably A.D. 48–52), which required the judicial intervention of the imperial legatus of Syria, Ummidius Quadratus, and led to the dismissal of the procurator himself.81 But there is nothing to show that Quadratus, in visiting (p.185) Judaea to settle these disputes, had to bring any significant legionary forces with him, or that coloni from Ptolemais subsequently played any role in repressing troubles in Judaea, or in the Jewish War itself (as a contingent from Berytus had done earlier, after Herod's death in 4 B.C.).82 There is also the puzzle of the limited legal rights given to the new colonia. We would naturally suppose that the Empire saw a progression from “real” coloniae, involving the settlement of veterans and the granting of ius Italicurn and full remission of tribute, to “nominal” coloniae, which might receive full or partial rights depending on the indulgentia of the emperor. But in fact Ulpian is categorical as to the absence of privileges on the part of this colonia (Dig. 50, 15, 16): Ptole- maeensium enitn colonia, quae inter Phoenicen et Palaestinam sita est, nihil praeter nomen coloniae habet. Can it be that, far from being a fundamental conception of Roman public law, integral to the overseas coloniae of the classical period, the ius Italicum was a legal construct which evolved in the course of the Empire?83 Or was it, as Miss Levick suggested to me, that Ptolemais had lost some rights in the period between the foundation and the composition of Ulpian's De Censibus under Caracalla?

A closely comparable question presents itself in the case of the next colonia founded in the Holy Land, Caesarea. Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 5, 69) carefully brings the history of the town right up to date: Stratonis Turris, eadem Caesarea ab Herode rege condita, nunc Colonia Prima a Vespasiano Imperatore deducta. In doing so he reproduces almost in full the formal titulature of the new colonia, as it was to appear on the coins, from the reign of Domitian onwards: Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea.84 In this case there can be no reason to doubt that the new status reflected the role of Caesarea as a military base in the Jewish War, conducted of course by Vespasian himself up to the moment of his coup d'état; indeed if we follow Josephus, it had been there that Vespasian had first been hailed as emperor by his troops, in the summer of A.D. 69.85

No source suggests that any deductio of veterans took place, and no legionary standards appear on the colonial coinage. As Isaac has pointed out, the (p.186) language in which the jurist Paulus speaks of the status granted to the inhabitants by Vespasian clearly suggests a grant to an existing population (Dig. 50, 15, 8, 7): Divus Vespasianus Caesarienses colonos fecit, non adiecto, ut et iuris Italici essent, sed tributum his remisit capitis; sed divus Titus etiam solum immune factum interpretatus est.

Ulpian confirms that the Colonia Caesariensis did not enjoy the ius Itali- cum (Dig. 50,15,1, 6). It seems from the way that the jurists (though no earlier source) express themselves that they saw coloniae as belonging potentially to four possible grades: (1) no privileges; (2) partial remission of tributum; (3) full remission of tributum; and (4) ius Italicum. Paulus' account indicates that Vespasian, on granting the status of colonia, gave along with it only remission of tributum capitis. It can be taken as certain that Titus' interpretation, giving the remission a wider definition, will have been in response to a submission by the city, either transmitted by the legatus of Judaea or (more likely) brought before him by an embassy.

By the standards of a middle-rank provincial town, the life of Caesarea is illustrated, or potentially illustrated, by quite an extensive range of literature, above all Christian. For it was there for several decades that Origen taught, there that Pamphilus established his library, and there above all that Eusebius lived, wrote, and served as bishop. Yet Eusebius for instance never refers to Caesarea's status as colonia. Nor, more significantly, does Gregorius of Neo- caesarea, for whom, as we saw, Berytus was a “more Roman” city (text to n. 42 above), but Caesarea was merely the seat of the governor of Syria Palaestina, and by divine providence the place where he came to be a pupil of Origen. Nothing in any of these sources would suggest to us that Caesarea was not still a Greek city like any other. The same is largely true of inscriptions: witness the second-century inscription of a boxer from Aphrodisias cited earlier (text to n. 5 above), in which the town appears as Caesarea Stratõnos, a curious mixture of the two names which it had successively borne before becoming a colonia. However, there is some slight inscriptional evidence reflecting the new status of the place. One item is a remarkable Greek inscription of the end of the second century from Mount Carmel, which also illustrates the attraction of the Zeus, or Iuppiter, of Heliopolis: ΔιὶἩλιOπOλείTῃ Καρμήλῳ/Γ. ἸOύλ. EὐTυχᾶς / Kόλ(ωV) Καισαρεύς.‎ It is inscribed on the base of a statue of which only the toes of one foot remain.86 The localisation of a cult of the deity of Heliopolis on Mount Carmel raises complex problems of religious (p.187) history. For the present what is relevant is the self-identification of the dedicator (evidently the descendant of a Greek family which had received the citizenship at least some decades before the foundation of the colonia) as a Kόλ(ωV) Καισαρεύς.‎ The pseudo-Greek term is paralleled elsewhere in the Near East: one example, from Palmyra, has already been noted (text to n. 7 above).

The use of Latin in the colonia is now attested by a considerable number of inscriptions. There is a dedication by a lady named [Cleo?]patra,87 and more important, the wellknown inscription of a man who, or whose family, gained the citizenship in the Flavian period: M. Fl. Agrippam, pontif., Ilviral. Col. I Fl. Aug. Caesareae, oratorem, ex dec. dec., pec. publ. (ILS 7206 = Lehmann and Holum [n. 87 below], no. 3). A single column from near the city contains both a dedication to a legatus of the second or third century, by a duo[vir] or duo[viri], perhaps ex dec. dec. pec. publ.88 More significant still is the pair of inscriptions of the first half of the third century found in the theatre. One names Aur. Fl. Theophilus, an eques Romanus and decurio of the metropolis, as being responsible for carrying out the decree of the decu- rions of the colony to honour Val. Calpurnianus, praefectus of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene, pat(rono) metropolis - eos?) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).89 The other is a dedication to Aelius Iulianus, proc. Aug. n., also patr(ono) metropolis?) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionuin).90 The inscriptions represent valuable epigraphic confirmation of a phenomenon which is better attested on third-century coinage, namely the combination of the title colonia with the Greek status term for major provincial cities, metropolis.91 If there was at any time a precise defmition (p.188) of the conditions under which a city could call itself a metropolis, it is not clear in our sources. It is at least certain that the title could be formally asked for from the emperor and conferred by him.92 But it is equally clear that it proliferated in the course of the empire and was not, for instance, confined to one city in each province.

More important in the present context is the fact that it is a Greek status title, which could be borne by coloniae as by purely Greek cities. In the case of the two inscriptions just cited indeed, while the use of Latin has survived, the actual title colonia has been displaced by metropolis. By contrast the coinage of Caesarea from Severus Alexander to Volusianus gives the title Col. I F. Aug. F(elix?) C(?) Caes. Metrop93. All the evidence combines to suggest that the normal language of Caesarea was Greek. It was there that, according to the Talmud of Jerusalem, Rabbi Levi bar Haitah, heard the Shema (“Hear, Ο Israel”) being recited in Greek.94 He will have been in little danger of encountering the same phenomenon in Latin.

The last of the coloniae of this period was Aelia Capitolina, Jerusalem. Alone of all the coloniae of the Near East, it arose from the destruction of an existing city and the wholesale replacement of its population by a new one. It is not necessary here to enter into the question of the situation of Jerusalem after the Jewish War of A.D. 66, the problem of whether the foundation of a colonia had been decided on before the Bar Kochba war of A.D. 132–35, or whether Jerusalem was ever captured by the rebels, and then recaptured by the Romans.95 Whatever the immediate background, there is no reason to doubt Cassius Dio's report that a new city called Aélia Capitolina was founded in the place of the one which had been destroyed, and that the temple was replaced by a pagan temple to “Zeus” (Juppiter Capitolinus);96 a gentile pagan population also took the place of ajewish one;97 hence the first bishop of non-Jewish origin was in office there soon after the refoundation (Eusebius, HE 4, 6, 4). We can assume that in this case large-scale rebuilding accompanied the foundation, and accounts of this process are offered later by (p.189) the Chronicon Paschale and by Joannes Malaias.98 Although much archaeological effort has been devoted in recent years to Roman and Byzantine Aelia, the results remain both controversial and incompletely published, and there is little that can be said with certainty as to the second-century city or the quarters of the Legion X Fretensis which may have occupied part of it.99

There is nothing in our evidence to make clear whether the citizens of the new colonia were drawn from veterans or from civilians; if the latter, a new population must have been recruited, for contemporary sources make clear that Jews were excluded.100 A colonia formed not from an existing city but from new civilian settlers would however be unique in this period, and it may be better to accept the colonial coins with vexilla of the legion X Fretensis as evidence that veterans were settled. If so, however, Aelia then provides a unique combination of a legionary camp with a colonia of veterans from the same legion.101 In either case, Aelia Capitolina and Mursa in Pannonia Inferior represent the only two “genuine” coloniae of Hadrian's reign, and the last such coloniae in the history of Rome.102

With the new foundation there was associated an extensive programme of road building in Judaea, and milestones from the relevant roads reflect, though in Greek, the new status and name of Jerusalem: for instance ἀπὸ KOλ. Aἰλίας ΚαπιTωλ. μιλ.έ.‎103 We would naturally suppose that the impact of the foundation on the surrounding territory was considerable. Given the model of Berytus, we might also suppose that Aelia, as (apparently) a new veteran colonia, backed by a legionary camp, on a site whose original population had either been slaughtered or driven out, would have represented another long-standing “Latin island.” If it did, however, there is remarkably little evidence to show it. Christian sources of course have precisely focused interests, but they do reveal that, apart from the temple of Juppiter, there was also one of Venus, subsequently identified as the site of the Holy Sepulchre.104 But as an active expression of the city's colonial status and Latin character we have almost nothing to go on except its coins, where it appears (p.190) as Col. Ael. Cap. and then, from Septimius Severus onwards, as Col. Ael. Cap. Comm(odiana) Pia Felix.105 This latter name appears on just one inscription from the city, from near the southern wall of the Temple mount. Dating from the reign of Severus, it provides the title [Colonia Ael]ia Kap(itolina) Commo [diana].106

We are therefore left with a puzzle, on which the available evidence sheds no real light. We have very little to illustrate the social composition, public cults, or nature of local self-government (which we may assume was conducted by duumviri and a council of decuriones). Some relevant Latin inscriptions are indeed available: for instance a statue base in honour of Antoninus Pius d(ecreto) d(ecurtonum) (CIL III 6639); and another from the lintel of the Roman gate underlying the Damascus Gate, naming the Colonia Aelia Capitolina.107 In what seems to be the only scholarly publication of it, the inscription is reported to read Co. Ael. Cap. d(ecreto) d(ecurionum).108

The availability of such fragments of evidence will hardly serve to obscure our total ignorance of the dominant languages and the self-identification of the inhabitants of what had been Jerusalem (and was frequently still called Jerusalem by Christian writers) in its period as the Colonia Aelia Capitolina. It is only when we reach the visit by the western pilgrim “Egeria” in the 380s, that we learn that Christian services there were conducted in Greek, with a regular translation into Aramaic, and a secondary translation, when necessary, into Latin.109 Much had no doubt changed since Hadrian's triumphant (p.191) creation of a Roman colonia on the site, with a Roman constitution and Roman gods. But the nature and evolution of that change escapes us entirely.

The Reign of Septimius Severus

With the ascent to the throne of Septimius Severus in A.D. 193 a quite new phase opens in the nature of Roman coloniae in the Near East. As we will see, it is not beyond possibility that his origins in Tripolitania, a Latinspeaking area whose Punic sub-culture was a distant product of Phoenician colonisation, had some effect on this change. Equally, it may be relevant that his wife, Iulia Domna, came from the city of Emesa in Syria, a place which contemporaries tended to characterise as “Phoenician,” even though it was situated not on the coast but on the middle Orontes. Once again, the most difficult problems of ethnic identity present themselves.

Two more obvious influences on the scale and nature of the formation of new coloniae in this period were the civil war fought between Severus and Pescennius Niger, the legatus of Syria, and the extension of the Roman frontier from the Euphrates to the Tigris. The title of colonia was to be conferred on a whole series of places, mostly very little known or understood, in the new provinces of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene. One place which received it subsequently is, however, rather better known, namely Edessa/Orhai, which until 213/14 was the capital of the small kingdom of Abgar.

The most clearly attested factor in this new phase was the use of the rank or title of colonia as part of the repertoire of imperial rewards (with corresponding punishments), meted out to cities in respect of the attitude they had taken in the civil war of 193–96.110 Once again rabbinic literature happens to offer a remarkably vivid and apposite reflection of just this situation: the people of a city are recorded as asking a king (emperor) to make their city a colonia (QLWNY'), because they think it a good moment, as two of his enemies have just been defeated.111

Contemporary sources make the connection between civil war and grants of colonial status quite explicit, and in one case a combination of evidence provides a precise date. Herodian records that there were local hostilities between Laodicea and Antioch and between Berytus and Tyre, and that Laodicea (p.192) and Tyre were quick to align themselves with Severus on the news of his victory over Pescennius Niger in Cappadocia in 194; Laodicea was then sacked by Niger's troops.112 This sack, and reports of the rewards which then followed for Laodicea, appear in the sixth-century Chronicle of Malaias: Severus granted senatorial rank to the leading men of the city, gave large sums of money for public expenditures, built various public buildings, and decreed that the city should have the status of metropolis and be named after himself.113

The latter point is perhaps a confusion with Tyre, which was also rewarded (see below). More significant is the fact that the rank of metropolis retained its relevance in Malaias' time; but the status of colonia, which Laodicea also received, has dropped out of memory. But it is that which Ulpian, as a contemporary and a Roman jurist, had recorded, and related emphatically to the civil war: Est et Laodicena colonia in Syria Coele, cui divus Severus ius Italicum ob belli civilis merita concessit.114 Yet Malaias' perspective was not entirely misleading, for a weight from Laodicea published by H. Seyrig shows that the year 205/6 counted as the 9th of the kolonia, but the 13th of the metropoliteia (the status of metropolis).115 Severus had thus granted the title of metropolis on his arrival in 194, but that of colonia only in 198, when he was again in the Syrian region.

Both titles are reflected in the designation of an athlete from Laodicea, in an inscription of A.D. 221, as KόλωV Λα〈O〉[δι]Kεὺς μηTρOπOλείTης Kα[ὶ] ἄλλωV πόλεωV πOλείTης.‎116 The pseudo-Greek term KόλωV‎ is used again; and the Romano-Greek public character of the city is reflected equally in its coins. Under Caracalla one example has LAU COLMETROIUL;117 from then on a variety of Latin terms appear, including AETER-NUM BENEFICIUM and ROMAE FEL. But a substantial series with the Latin/Greek legend COL LAOD METROPOLEOS does not appear until the reign of Philip, ceasing (p.193) in that of Gallus.118 With that, as it seems, all reflection of the colonial status of the city also ceases. What is significant however is the clear dating of the title metropolis to 194 and of colonia to 198, and the connection of both with the posture adopted by the city in the civil war.

Apart from Antioch and Laodicea, the other pair of mutually hostile neighbours which Herodian mentioned (text to n. 112 above) was Tyre, which took the Severan side, and Berytus. Tyre too became a colonia, as we will see below. But the reference also provides a perfectly clear and intelligible framework for the elevation of Heliopolis to the rank of an independent city with the status of colonia. That is to say that the urban conglomeration (pagus?) which already existed around the long-famous temple of Juppiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus in the Bekaa valley (above) was now detached from the territory of the colonia of Berytus on the coast. The deployment of political favour, and disfavour, in this way finds an exact parallel under Constantine, when the Emperor granted the port of Gaza, Maiouma, city status as a reward for the Christian faith of its inhabitants. It was thus detached from Gaza, whose population remained predominantly pagan.119

It may have been merely that Berytus incurred displeasure and was punished by the loss of territory. Alternatively the people of Heliopolis, like the inhabitants of the vicus Patavissensium in Dacia, may have petitioned Severus, as Ulpian records (Dig. 50, 15, 1, 9): In Dacia … Patavissensium vicus, qui a divo Severo ius coloniae impetravit. But at any rate it is Ulpian who makes quite clear the relevance of the civil war in the case of Heliopolis (Dig. 50, 15, 1, 2): Heliopolitana (colonia), quae a divo Severo per belli civilis occasionem Italicae coloniae rem publicam accepit. Almost at the same moment as Ulpian was writing we find Caracalla in A.D. 215 issuing a rescript about a case in which the res publica Heliopolitanorum had come into possession of some property. It is interesting (see below) that a party to the suit is called Sossianus (CJ 8, 17, 4).

As we have seen, the area was already “colonial,” being part of the distinctive zone of Latin and Roman culture created by the settlement of legionaries at Berytus and in its wide territorium. There is nothing in the least surprising or confusing in the fact that the formal title of the new colonia reflected its historical origins in the veteran settlement under Augustus: Colonia Iulia Augusta Felix Heliopolis. Not having been an independent city, the place had of course minted no coins until Severus' reign. From Severus to Gallienus we (p.194) duly find coins with COL (IUL AUG FEL) HEL.120 Under Philip and his son the colonial coins also portray the standards of the two legions, the V Mace- donica and VIII Augusta, which had taken part in the original settlement; a few also incorporate the conventional scene of the founder ploughing.121 The coins, like the title of the colonia, should be read as conscious historical reminiscence, or retrospection.

It is in keeping with the already established Latin, or Roman, character of the area that we have a much better series of Latin inscriptions, from the reign of Caracalla to the Tetrarchy, illustrating its colonial status than from any other place. What is perhaps the earliest is probably a dedication to Caracalla ex dec(reto) dec(urionum) splendissimae col(oniae) Iul(iae) Aug(ustae) Fel(icis) Hel(iopolis) (IGLS VI 2899). Another is securely dated to A.D. 213 (IGLS VI 2918); under Gordian a decurio of the colonia erected a “torchbearing” statue to mark his decurionate: statuam luciferam decurionatus sui hiccotilo[ca]tam (IGLS VI 2710); a dedication (IGLS VI 2772) and a milestone (IGLS VI 2900) date to the Tetrarchic period, as do newly published milestones from the Heliopolis-Berytus road—Col[(onia) Iul(ia) Aug(usta) Fel(ix)] Hel(iopolis)—and from the northeastern limits of the city's territory, near the sources of the Orontes.122 There the series of local Latin inscriptions of the colonia ends, along with the general decline of the epigraphic habit. There is also an undated dedication (IGLS VI 2743) by Baebius Aurelianus Dius dec. col. Hel. But one native of the third-century colonia, L. Trebonius Sossianus (for the name, text following n. 119), who entered the Roman army and rose to the rank of primus pilus, was to leave a record of himself and his city both in Rome and at Philippopolis in Arabia. On the Janiculum in Rome he put up under Gordian an inscription which perfectly expressed both the local and the “Roman” patriotism of Heliopolis: I.O.M.H., conservatori imperii d(omini) n(ostri) Gordiani Pii Fel. Invicti Aug(usti), L. Trebonius Fab. Sossianus, colonia Heliopoli, (centurio) frum(entarius) leg. III Fl(aviae) Gordianae p.p.123 A few years later the same man, now a p(rimus) p(ilus) domo col. Hel., honoured C. Iulius Priscus, (p.195) the brother of the emperor Philip, at their native city, Philippopolis (now itself a colonia).124

Even in Heliopolis we would expect that both before and after the conferment of the new status Greek will have been current as well as Latin; and we do duly find one Greek inscription which expresses the colonial character of the place. A relief from the stairway of the main temple of Baalbek is accompanied by a brief inscription contained in a cartouche: NάρKισOς ΚασίOυ, βOυλευTιKὸς KOλ(ωVείας) Ἡλ(ιOυπόλεως).‎125 The inscription has sometimes been taken to date to the first half of the second century, and hence to provide evidence that from the beginning Heliopolis was an independent colonia. But the date is hypothetical, and a single brief inscription such as this cannot possibly stand against the accumulation of other evidence. In fact it is to be seen as a Greek reflection, of a familiar type, of the institutions of Severus' new foundation.

The other place which Herodian (text to n. 112 above) records as having displayed a timely loyalty to Severus in 194 was the city of Tyre. It can hardly be doubted that its acquisition from Severus of the rank of colonia and the privilege of ius Italicum came about precisely for that reason. But if that is so, its proud citizen Domitius Ulpianus, certainly born some decades before the change of status, chooses to record the fact in more grandiose language, reflecting the antiquity of the city and its long-standing relation with Rome: ut est in Syria Phoenice splendidissima Tyriorum colonia, unde mihi origo est, nobilis regio- nibus, serie saeculorum antiquíssima, armipotens, foederis quod cum Romanispercussit tenacíssima; huic enim divus Severus et imperator noster ob egregiam in rem publicam imperiumque Romanum insignem fidem ius Italicum dedit.126 From Ulpian's wording the date should not be earlier than A.D. 198, when Caracalla (imperator noster) became joint Augustus with Severus; and it very probably was precisely 198, the same date as Laodicea.

Tyre, like other places, was now simultaneously a colonia and a metropolis. The scanty epigraphy of the city largely confined to grave inscriptions of the late Roman period, offers very little confirmation of this, although one remarkable new discovery will be mentioned below. But the coins of Severus' reign already show the legend SEP(timia) TURUS METROP(olis) COLONI(a), and similar legends, with variations, continue up to the reign of Gallienus. In the absence of all other evidence the fact that for a period under Elagabal (p.196) (A.D. 218–22) the city minted with the Latin legend TVRIORVM seems remarkably fragile evidence for the common notion that the status of colonia was removed and then restored.127

The inscriptional evidence for the colonial status of Tyre is not extensive but includes items of remarkable interest, complexity, and suggestiveness. The earliest is certainly a Latin inscription from Lepcis Magna inTripolitania, the native city of Septimius Severus, itself a Phoenician/Punic city which had been Romanised in the early Empire, and had become a colonia under Trajan.128 Among the many inscriptions from there honouring Severus and other members of his family, there is a statue base with the words [[P. Septimio Getae nobilíssimo Caesari]] Septimia Tyros Colonia Metropolis Phoenices et aliarum civitatium.129 Severus' younger son, Septimius Geta, held the title “Caesar” from A.D. 198 until he was made joint Augustus with his father and elder brother in 209. His name was erased from inscriptions, including this one, after his murder by his brother Caracalla, probably late in A.D. 211. The dedication of the original statue therefore belongs to the period A.D. 198–209.

What is significant about the inscription is that it is a conscious reflection of the historic connections between the two cities which had been created by the Phoenician colonisation of the North African coast in the archaic period, and was indeed reflected also in dedications by Lepcis, as the Colonia Ulpia Traiana Aug(usta) Fidelis Lepcis Magna, put up in Tyre and honouring its mothercity, before it in its turn became a colonia.130 Precisely for that reason Septimia Tyros is not content here to be only Colonia and Metropolis Phoenices but adds et aliarum civitatium. It is entirely consonant with this that among the colonial coins of Tyre are ones portraying Dido supervising the foundation of Carthage. Thus, in the dedication to Geta, Tyre, made a colonia by a citizen of Lepcis, is recalling another and much older colonial relationship. The ancient glory of Tyre as a Phoenician city is also recalled on a colonial coin of the reign of Gallienus, on which, apart from the normal COL TVRO METR (p.197) there are the legends in Greek EΛΛH[NEΣ] and ΚAΔMΟΣ: the type recalls the invention of the alphabet in Phoenicia, and its subsequent transmission to Greece, by showing Kadmos giving a papyrus roll to three Greeks.

As was noted above (text following n. 71), it could have been expected that if a major Roman jurist originated from any of the coloniae of the Near East, it would have been Berytus, or Heliopolis. But in fact the major jurist of the classical period of Roman law, Domitius Ulpianus, came from Tyre. His official career and his fame as a lawyer are duly reflected in a puzzling inscription engraved on a column found near the Roman arch of Tyre, which itself belongs to the early third century.131 The lettering on the column may be late Roman, and it is perhaps a re-inscription of a contemporary text. If it is indeed a re-inscription, the fact that it is in Latin and concretely recalls the colonial status of the third-century city will have made it a sort of historical monument in itself. It is reported as reading:

  •                     Domitio Ulpiano, Praefecto
  •                     Praetorio, eminentissimo viro,
  •                     iurisconsulto, item Praefecto
  •                     Annonae Sacrae Urbis SEDERIA (SEBERIA?)
  •                     FELIX AUG […] PRIOR COL METROPOL
  •                     P[A]TRIA

The city title at the end seems confused, and it could of course be that the col(onia), metropol(is) named is not in fact Tyre but some other city. However, Miss B. M. Levick, to whom I was very grateful for her comments on the published text and photographs, suggested that instead of PRIOR in line 5 we should read TYRIOR. SEDERIA in line 4 might be a personal name, SEDEKIA(S) FELIX, described as AUG(ur?) or AUG(ustalis?) of the Tyrior(um) col(onia) metropol(is). The last three terms would then be in the same order as in the inscription from Lepcis Magna, though with the substitution of a group genitive plural for the place-name. RIA in the last line might be [MEMO]RIA. To go beyond that would be pure speculation. But Miss Levick confirmed that the lettering seems to be of the fourth century.

More securely located in its historical context is a Greek inscription of the mid-third century from Tyre, in honour of Septimius Odenathus: (p.198) ΣεπTίμ(ιOV) ΌδίVαθOV TὸV λαμπρόTαT(OV), ΣεπTιμία KOλ(ωVία) ΤύρOς ἡ μηTρόπOλις.‎ The date should be the later 240s or earlier 250s, and the person concerned is the famous Odenathus of Palmyra, already a senator but apparently not yet ύπαTίKός.‎132 A Roman citizen and senator, Odenathus came from a city which itself had been a Roman colonia for some decades (see below). Tyre, however, in erecting this statue as an honour from the city, has reverted to the use of Greek; and after the coinage ceases there is almost no evidence either for the public use of Latin there or for its status as a colonia being given emphasis, or even remembered. In the extensive writings of a major third-century writer from Tyre, Porphyry, and in the biographical information about him, this status is nowhere alluded to: to Eunapius in the later fourth century, he came from “Tyre, the foremost city of the ancient Phoenicians” (Vit. Soph. 455). The title metropolis, on the other hand, was still in dispute between Tyre and Berytus in A.D. 448–50 (CJ 11, 22, 1). It is clear why it should have been that title which was in dispute, since metropolis implied a predominance over other cities which colonia did not. None the less, there is an element of paradox in the appearance of this and not colonia in a legal document of A.D. 448–50. For exactly in those years we know that the status of Tyre as a colonia could still be recorded: in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, in a section relating to proceedings in 449, Tyre appears in this guise: ἐv KOλωVίᾳ Τύρῳ λαμπρόTάTῃ μηTρOπόλει ὑπαTιKῇ).‎133 It had surely been long since a mere title, which reflected nothing about the social and cultural character of the city.134

By contrast, almost nothing is known of Septimius Severus' transformation of Sebaste in Samaria into a colonia beyond Ulpian's bare statement (Dig. 50, 15, 1, 7): Divus quoque Severus in Sebastenam civitatem coloniam deduxit. The latter expression is surely nominal, not implying that actual settlers were brought there. Excavations there have provided evidence of signifi- (p.199) cant rebuilding—colonnades in the forum, a basilica, a columned street, and a stadium—none precisely dated but possibly belonging to the Severan period.135 The known inscriptions are extremely few; but one very fragmentary one seems to confirm that, as in other coloniae, there were duumviri, described by the normal Greek equivalent, σTραTηγOί.‎136 The colonial coins at any rate give some elements of the city's title: COL(onia) L(ucia?) SEP(timia) SEB(aste).137

That completes the list of the places within the already-established provincial area which received colonial status from Severus. What Sebaste did to earn this award is not clear; but elsewhere the connection with timely transfer to the Severan side in the civil war is explicitly or implicitly stated. Rather different considerations inevitably apply to the remarkable list of coloniae which made their appearance in newly conquered Mesopotamia, one of the least known and least understood areas of the ancient world.138

The initial creation of the new provinces of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene left as an enclave the small kingdom of Abgar with its capital Edessa, which was to become a colonia only under Caracalla (text to nn. 169–71 below). Here, as will be seen, there is remarkable evidence. Elsewhere we know only bare details. In the case of Nisibis at least, Cassius Dio indicates vaguely that a status (ἀξίωμα‎) was given to the city at the moment of the formation of the province; but elsewhere he elucidates this point by saying that Nisibis is now “ours” and is regarded as a colony—VûV μὲV ἡμεTέρα ἐσTὶ Kαὶ ἄπOιKOς ἡμῶV VOμίζεTαι.‎139 The coinage confirms this, though the legends are without exception Greek: the title as given on the coins expands from ΚΟΛ NEΣΙBΙ‎ under Macrinus to IOΥ(λίa) ΣE Π (Tιμία‎) ΚΟΛΩ(Vία) NEΣΙBΙ MHΤ(ρόπOλις)‎ under Philip.140 Until recently, nothing more was known. (p.200) But now one of the fascinating documents which form a Greek-Syriac archive from mid-third-century Mesopotamia refers to a document drawn up ἐV ΣεπTιμίᾳ KOλωVίᾳ μηTρOπόλι Nεσίβει‎, dating to A.D. 251.141 Ammianus' narrative, which has so much to say of the fortunes of Nisibis in the fourth century, gives no hint that it was a colonia. On the other cities of Mesopotamia there is no literary evidence for this phase, and this status, at all. But the coins show that Carrhae/Harran certainly, and Reshaina and Singara quite probably, became coloniae under Severus. Carrhae minted alternately in Greek and Latin, the other two only in Greek.142 All three also claimed the title metropolis. In the case of Carrhae, one of the papyri (no. 16) was drawn up in A.D. 250 ἐV Aὐρηλίᾳ Κάρραις KOλωVείᾳ μηTρOπόλει MεσOπO-Tαμίας.‎ The final publication of these papyri has shed some light on a potentially fascinating phase in ancient cultural history. This evidence, fragmentary as it is, is still a reflection of the remarkable impact of Severus on the map of the Near East, or at the very least on its toponomy.

The Third Century after Septimius Severus

Where Severus had led, his successors from the same dynasty, and their successors, followed. At least some aspects of the broader background to this development are clear: firstly, with the acquisition of Mesopotamia the Near East became one of the main areas of imperial military activity, an activity stimulated in its turn by the Persian reaction of the 220s and after. Secondly, the remaining emperors of the Severan dynasty, Caracalla (A.D. 211–17), Elagabal (218–22), and Severus Alexander (222–35), descended on the maternal side from a family from Emesa (which was to be another new colonia; see below). Furthermore, Philip (A.D. 244–49) came from a place in the northern Hauran which was also to become a colonia-cum-Greek city under the name of Philippopolis.

The repeated presence of emperors in this region, and their deep involvement (p.201) in military activity there, does serve in one way to explain, or at least to provide a framework for, some of the grants of colonial status. A glance at any map which specifies the formal status of cities in this region would show a line of coloniae stretching along the desert frontier from Arabia to the Tigris: Petra; Bostra; Philippopolis; Damascus; Palmyra, Dura-Europos(?); Carrhae; Reshaina; Nisibis; Singara.143 But of course any notion that that status expressed any actual Roman military character, any role of these towns as for-tresses in themselves, would be quite misleading. Furthermore, there were other cities which also received this status, such as Sidon, Flavia Neapolis, or Gaza, which can have been of no significance in external military terms; it is just possible that the threat of disorder posed by the Samaritans was relevant in the case of Neapolis. By contrast, the title of colonia was not granted to Seleucia in Pieria, which had served at least since the later first century as the main Roman port for this region;144 explicit inscriptional evidence from Cilicia shows supplies being delivered from there for the Roman armies in Syria in the first half of the third century,145 surely through Seleucia. It may seem equally surprising that the status of colonia, though granted, as we would expect, to Antioch (see below), was not conferred on Apamea. For it was not only a major city in its own right but was repeatedly the quarters of the Legion II Parthica, on campaign with emperors far away from its base at Albanum south of Rome.146 If military relevance had been the criterion, we might also have expected that Zeugma on the Euphrates would also have become a colonia.

We have to conclude that though these grants do indeed reflect the close involvement of emperors with this region in the third century, they have to be seen in each case as the expression of the vagaries of imperial favour. Those made in the reign of Caracalla and after also have the further characteristic that they accompany, or follow, that Emperor's grant of citizenship to all the inhabitants of the Empire. With that, one fundamental distinction between coloniae and the Greek, or semi-Greek, cities which surrounded them had been removed. In terms of citizenship there was now nothing to gain from being a colonia. What other rights followed, and what exactly they signified, (p.202) depended on the terms of the grant in each case, which we do not always know.

It may not be irrelevant that Ulpian from Tyre is the only jurist of this period whom we know to have referred specifically to what moderns call “The Constitutio Antoniniana”: in orbe Romano qui sunt ex constitutione imperato- ris Antonini eives Romani effecti sunt. As the form of his allusion to him shows, Ulpian was writing under Caracalla, in whose reign he composed, as it seems, almost the whole of his vast corpus of work.147 Not much of the relevant material incorporated in the Digest belongs more than a few years after that; and, in fact, the examples of coloniae given by Ulpian and Paulus stop with those of the reign of Caracalla. So, for instance, Ulpian can record the grant of colonial status and ius Italicum to Emesa, by Caracalla, without (at least in the quoted text) making clear that it was the home city of the Emperor's mother: Sed et Emisenae civitati Phoenices imperator noster ius coloniae dedit iurisque Italici earn fecit,148 Until now nothing in the limited epigraphical material from the site has reflected the new status of the city. But an inscription with the names of Macrinus and Diadumenianus ends with RESTITUIT COL. EMESEN-ORUM. It comes from the southwestern limits of the city territory, bordering on that of Heliopolis.149 The coins however are “colonial,” although they are all in Greek: we find EMΙΣΩ ΚΟΛΩNΙAΣ‎ or ΚΟΛΩN(ίας)‎ in 215–16 and 253, and MHTPO ΚΟΛ‎ (or MHΤPΟΚΟΛ?)‎ EMIΣΩN under Elagabal (A.D. 218–22).150 These coins may thus represent the earliest attested appearance of the hybrid Greek-Latin term μηTρO-KOλωVεία‎, attested a few decades later also at Palmyra (see below). Whether it was intended in this case to reflect Elagabal's own derivation from the city is not clear. Beyond that, our evidence fails us. The fourth-century literary evidence, which indicates that Emesa was then in decline, gives no hint of its colonial status.151

Ulpian does not refer to Caracalla's grant to Antioch. But Paulus, apparently writing after the Emperor's death, does: Divus Antoninus Antiochenses colonos fecit salvis tributis (Dig. 50, 15, 8, 5). The grant was thus the purest of (p.203) formalities, for salvis tributis will mean that no exemption from either tributum capitis or tributum soli was given. The coins, beginning under Elagabal, do however reflect the new status, showing legends, all in Greek, such as ANΤΙΟΧEΩN MHTP KOA‎, and ANTIOX MHTP ΚΟΛΩNΙAΣ.‎152 So limited indeed was the impact of colonial status on the culture of Antioch that Libanius, born in A.D. 314, could begin his Autobiography by refuting the misconceived notion that his grandfather, presumably born in the middle of the third century, had been an immigrant from Italy. The idea had arisen because the grandfather had once composed a speech in Latin: “The fact is that, although he was versed in Latin, he originated from nowhere else but here.”153 There seems to be nothing in the extensive fourth-century evidence relating to Antioch to suggest that the title was still remembered.154 However, another of the new documents from Mesopotamia (no. 5) is a petition of A.D. 245, posted ἐv ΆVTίOχ(είᾳ) KOλ(ωVία) μηTρOπόλει‎ in the Hadrianic baths.155

Ulpian also records, immediately after Emesa, in his list of places with colonial status: Est et Palmyrena civitas in província Phoenice, prope barbaras gentes et nationes collocata (Dig. 50, 15, 1, 5). Ulpian's description of the place is very striking, for he must presumably be alluding to other unsettled peoples of the Syrian desert west of the Euphrates. As we now know, Palmyrene settlement extended a substantial distance west and northwest, and inscriptional evidence shows that their territory had common boundaries with Greek cities to the west in the Orontes valley: Apamea (probably) and Emesa certainly.156 But the city also maintained at least outposts to the east along various routes all the way to the Euphrates itself.157 If Ulpian were thinking of truly unsubdued Arab gentes and nationes, their territory must have lain to the north, (p.204) between Palmyra and Chalcis, or more probably to the south, where Palmy- rene territory shaded off into the true desert of the Empty Quarter. At any rate this is the aspect which Ulpian chooses to stress rather than any role in the protection of long-distance trade with the East, or any function as a military strong point in relation to Parthia. By comparison with his allusions to grants of colonial status in connection with the civil war of the 190s, he does not in this case offer any explanation of how or by whom the title came to be conferred. Nor does he make clear whether he would have thought of the Palmyrena civitas itself as being somewhat barbara.

For us, however, though we remain entirely ignorant of the date or immediate context of the grant to Palmyra, the fact that Palmyra is the only city in the entire Near East to offer a long series of public inscriptions in both Greek and a Semitic language has the further consequence that it offers the fullest documentary, and trilingual, reflection of the new status. Palmyra, like Edessa (below), offers the image of a city which was “Semitic,” Greek, and Roman all at once—or, at any rate, was so for the few decades before its reconquest by Aurelian in 272.

Before the grant of colonial status, apparently under Severus or more probably Caracalla, its formal character as a community had been merely dual, Greek and Palmyrene. This character is best seen in the famous tax law of the 130s, where the city is ΆδριαVή ΠάλμVρα‎ in Greek, HDRYN' TDMR (Tadmor) in Palmyrene. It has a βOυλή and δῆμOς‎ / BWL' WDMS; and office-holders with the Greek titles: proedros (given as the abstract noun proedria—PLHDRWT'); archontes / ‘RKWNY’; a grammateus/ GRMTWS. These terms are all, as is obvious, merely transliterated into Palmyrene. But a further term, dekaprõtoi, or perhaps better decuria (as Teixidor suggests), is not, being translated as ‘SRT’, or “group of ten.”158

Palmyra, as it was in the last two-thirds of the second century, could thus be seen as a place with the normal institutions of a Greek polis, but where those institutions were, uniquely, also reflected in a long series of public inscriptions in a Semitic language. Like many a Greek city it had acquired also a Roman imperial name, Hadriane; and the inscriptions also show a steady intrusion of Roman citizen names, borne by individuals. Then, from Caracalla onwards, the standard “Roman” name borne by a Palmyrene is of a strange (p.205) form, with two “imperial” notnina, that is both “Iulius” and “Aurelius.” There is no way of determining whether Caracalla's universal grant of citizenship or the specific grant of the status of colonia to Palmyra came first; but the latter also seems to date to his reign.159

What is clear is that we have unambiguous evidence in the epigraphy of Palmyra for the colonial status of the city and the adoption of a colonial constitution, headed by an annual pair of duumviri. But, apart from a couple of milestones in Latin referring to the col. Pal., or col. Palm.,160 all the evidence is in Greek or Palmyrene. The colonial status of the city is therefore expressed in Palmyrene inscriptions either by transliteration (QLNY') or by using the normal Greek equivalent for the duumvir of a colonia, namely σTραTηγός‎, transliterated as 'SṬRṬG in Palmyrene. Once, however, we will see (below) an attempt to produce in Greek a translation rather than equivalence.

Only a few of these items of evidence are dated to the decades immediately following the conferment of colonial status. The earliest is an honorific Greek inscription from the Great Colonnade, dating to A.D. 224/5, and recording Iulius Aurelius Seiba Ath[e]akabas and (Iulius Aurelius?) Titianus Athenodorus as σTραTηγOύVTωV.‎161 Then there is a bilingual honorific inscription, also from a column in the Great Colonnade, dating to A.D. 242/3, and referring back to the service of Iulius Aurelius Zenobius, also called Zab- dilas, on the occasion of the visit of the emperor Severus Alexander, in the early 230s.162 In the Greek text he is referred to as σTραTηγησαVTα,‎ but in the Palmyrene more fully as ‘SṬRṬGLQLNY’. Earlier he had another office, described as ἀγOραVOμησαVTα,‎ surely in the context the equivalent of aedilis. In this case the Palmyrene version gives a translation, RB ŠWQ, “controller of the market” (souk). It is important to stress that Palmyrene was a living language, whose use was not passively dependent on Graeco-Roman conceptions and terminology. This point is confirmed by a bilingual inscription (Inventaire X, 115) from the Agora, in which Iulius Aurelius Malichus is honoured as a past stratēgos and agoranomos of the colonia. The second office is described in Palmyrene via an abstract noun, and the first probably is also: (p.206) [B'SṬRṬGWT' DY] QLNY' WBRBNŠQWTH — “in his stratlgia of the kolōneia and in his control of the market.”

From October A.D. 254 we have a bilingual inscription honouring Iulius Aurelius Ogga apparently as δυα[VδριKόV, φιλO-Tείμ]ως σTραT[ηγήσαVTα Kα]ὶ μαρTυρηθέV]Tα …].‎ If the restorations are correct, the office of duumvir/ σTραTηγός‎ was referred to twice in different ways. Here again the Palmy- rene version is not a simple transliteration or even a translation, but a slightly different text: WSPR LHWN B'STRTGWTH—“and gave them satisfaction in his stratēgia.163 The remaining evidence, dating to the middle of the third century, reflects the rise of Palmyra to independent power under the leadership of Septimius Odenathus. The spread to other leading Palmyrenes of the Roman imperial nomen “Septimius” seems to be a result of this local leadership, and not of an earlier set of grants by Septimius Severus.164 Thus the person to whom most of the relevant texts refer, Septimius Worod, seems to be the same as the “Aurelius Worod” attested in A.D. 258/9 as a Roman eques (which appears as ἱππιKός‎ / HPQ') and city councillor of Palmyra (βOυλευTής ΠαλμυρηVός‎ / BYLWṬ' TDMRY').165 With the assertion of independent power by Palmyra, this man rose to a series of important positions. In 262 a bilingual inscription from the Great Colonnade describes him as [TὸV KράTισT]OV έπίTρOπ]OV ΣεβασTOû δ]OυKηVάριOV‎/ QRṬYSṬS ‘PTRP’. At this point he is more probably still in imperial service. The man putting up the inscription is a duumvir of the colonia, Iulius Aurelius Nebuzabadus, [σTραT]ηγὸς]Tῆς]λαμπρO-TάTης KOλωVείας‎/ ‘STR〈Ṭ〉G' DY QLNY’.166

Septimius Worod was also at some point aedilis and then duumvir of the colonia, possibly before A.D. 262. For another bilingual inscription from the Great Colonnade, whose Palmyrene text is almost entirely missing, and whose precise date is uncertain, records that he had held these offices in the past: λαμπρῶς σTραTηγήσαVTα Kαὶ ἀγOραVOμήσαVTα Tῆ ς αὐTῆς μηTρO-KOλωVείας.‎ This new term μηTρO-KOλωVεία‎ (perhaps first recorded at Emesa; see text to n. 150 above) is a perfect expression of the hybrid character of the more prominent cities in the Roman Near East in this period. The form in which it is used here, however, is a function of the fact that the inscription has already mentioned Septimius Worod's present post: [δι]KεOδόTηV Tῆς μηT]ρO-KOλω]Vείας.‎167 This expression may or may not be intended as (p.207) the equivalent of the Persian title argapet (governor), attributed to Septi- mius Worod on some other inscriptions of 265–67, that is, the last couple of years of the rule of Septimius Odenathus before his murder in 267.168 That raises problems which are not strictly relevant here. But it seems to be from the same period that we have a fragmentary Greek dedication from the monumental arch, using the expression “King of Kings,” and referring to a victory over the Persians, put up by two men, one of whom seems to be the same Septimius Worod with a more developed set of Roman Imperial nomina: ἸOύλιOς AὐρήλιOς]ΣεπTί]μιOς Ο]ὐ]O]ρ]ώδης.‎ The two dedicants are described as ἀμφόTερOι σTρα]TηγOὶ Tῆς λαμ]πρO-TάTης[K]Oλω[V]είας.‎169

It is not necessary here to pursue the question of the career of Septimius Worod or the precise form of government and office-holding in Palmyra during the brief period of its rise to power. Suffice to say that the city continued to designate itself as a KOλωVεία‎ / QLNY' or μηTρO-KOλωVεία‎ (no Pal- myrene equivalent is yet attested), and to have stratēgoi among its annual officials up to the last few years of its fully independent existence. We might have expected also that the coinage of Palmyra, as of the other coloniae of this region, would contribute something to our understanding of its character. But the small bronze coins of Palmyra, not certainly datable, reveal nothing about its formal designation or status.170

The reconquest of the city by Aurelian in 272 took place at about the moment when city coinages generally ceased, and there is no reason to imagine that minting there would have continued anyway. Inscriptions in Palmyrene might have; but in fact it seems that they ended abruptly. The city was not in fact destroyed; instead it continued, so far as we know, as a minor Greek provincial place, with a Roman garrison.171 The few Greek inscriptions of the fourth century and after, mainly Christian epitaphs, give no hint that the city's status as a colonia was still recalled. But there is at least one Latin milestone of the Tetrarchic period to prove that colonial status survived the reconquest (text to n. 160 above).

(p.208) None the less, the evidence available shows that in the decades between the grant of colonial status and the reconquest by Aurelian, the previously “Semitic,” Greek, or “Arab-Greek” city took on many “Roman” features. As regards the widespread adoption of Roman names, largely in the anomalous form “Iulius Aurelius…” we cannot clearly distinguish between the effects of becoming a colonia, and the more general effects of the constitutio Antoni- niana. But it is quite evident that the city adopted or received a new “colonial” constitution, with duumviri and aediles, under the Greek designation of stratēgoi and agoranomoi.

Something similar can be traced in the case of the only place in the Near East which has left a significant body of non-Jewish literary evidence in a Semitic language, namely Edessa.172 When the new Roman provinces of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene were formed in the 190s, the small kingdom of King Abgar (IX?), with Edessa as its capital, remained as an enclave within Osrhoene (AE 1984, 919, A.D. 195, and 920, A.D. 205). From Abgar's reign we have the one remaining substantial fragment of the sixth-century Syriac Chronicle of Edessa, a vivid description of a flood in A.D. 201. This narrative is far from revealing the entire structure of city self-government; but it does show that the city, though dominated by a king, had its own communal officials, SPR' D'WRHY (“scribes of Orhai,” i.e., Edessa), and “superintendents of the city” (ŠRYR' DMDYNT').173

Under Caracalla (A.D. 211–17) there came a sudden transformation. King Abgar IX (?)—or possibly his son, Abgar X (?)—was summoned by the Emperor and deposed, and the area became part of the Roman province of Osrhoene. It seems clear that the exact date of this change was A.D. 212/13. For this is implied by the famous Syriac contract of sale, found at Dura-Europos, but written in Edessa in A.D. 243, and first published in 1935.174 This document is dated in a way which clearly points to a previous transforma- (p.209) tion of the city's status in 212 or 213: “in the month Iyár of the year 554 of the former reckoning [the Seleucid era] and the year 31 … of the freedom….” “Freedom” (ḤRWRYH) here seems to refer both to the moment of pro- vincialisation and to the apparently simultaneous elevation of Edessa to the status of colonia. For the city is referred to as “the renowned Antonina [sic] Edessa, Colonia Metropolis Aurélia Alexandria” ('NṬWNYN' 'DS' NSYHT' QLWNY' MTRP-WLS 'WRLY' 'LKSNDRY'). Colonia thus makes its appearance as a loan-word, slightly differently transliterated by comparison with Aramaic and Palmyrene, in yet another Semitic language. As in various other cases, it is associated with the purely Greek status appellation of metropolis and with items of imperial nomenclature, of which the last will presumably have been acquired in the reign of Severus Alexander (A.D. 222–35). Here again, however, we are not presented with a mere change of name, but with a new “colonial” constitution. For the document is also dated not only “in the priesthood [BKMRWT'] of Marcus Aurelius Antiochus, Roman knight [HP-WS RHMWS—i.e., ἱππεὺζ ῬωμαîOς],‎ son of Belsu,” but also by the two strategoi—“in the stratēgia [B'SṬRṬGWT'] of Marcus Aurelius Abgar, Roman knight, son of Ma'nu, grandson of Agga, and of Abgar, son of Hafsai, grandson of Bar-Kmr.” On the verso one of the two stratēgoi/duumviri, Aurelius Abgar, appears as a witness, writing his own signature both in Syriac—'WRLS 'BGR SṬRṬG' ŠHD (witness)—and in Greek: ἌβγαρOς‎ or Ἄβγαρ ὁ σTρ(αTηγός)‎.175 That he could and did write both is a very significant fact.

The document shows throughout the impact of Roman citizenship and Roman nomenclature. All the persons involved, both male and female, have Roman names, with Semitic, or in one case Greek, cognomina. Almost the same applies to the seller, Lucius(?) Aurelius Tiro, son of Bar B'šmn, ḤRNY'—“Harranian,” that is, from Carrhae/Harran, also now a Roman colonia (text to n. 142 above). But we also seem to find traces of the previous system of city government of Edessa. For there is still a scribe (SPR') in whose hand the main body of the text is written, and who concludes it with the words “I Marcus Aurelius Belšu, son of Moqimu, the scribe, have written this document” (MRQWS 'WRLYWS BLŠW BR MQYMW SPR' KTBT ŠTR' HN'). Immediately above, another official, perhaps the supervisor of the archives, writes in Greek: Aὐρ. MάVVOς ὁ ἐπὶ TOû ἱερOû Kαὶ TOû πOλειTιKOû μ(α?)ρ(Tυρῶ?).‎ There follows a seal with the image of Gordian III (A.D. 238–44). The use of Greek, however, may serve to introduce one of the most anomalous features in the history of Edessa as a Roman colonia. There appear to be no inscriptions reflecting this status. But, as elsewhere, there are (p.210) coins, which, like those of most other Mesopotamian coloniae, are entirely in Greek. The legends come in a variety of forms: ΚΟΛΩ(Vία) M(ηTρόπOλις?) A(ύ?)P(ηλία?)‎ or MAP(Kία?) EΔEΣΣA; MAP AΥ ANΤ(ωVιVιαVὴ)KOA EΔEΣΣA; MHΤ KOΛ EΔEΣΣA,‎ and so forth; the colonial coins begin under Elagabal, or possibly Caracalla, and continue under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222–35) and Gordian III (A.D. 238–44).176 But then, still under Gordian III, we find coins with the Emperor on the obverse, and on the reverse one figure seated on a podium and, before him, another standing figure, wearing a high tiara and offering him a statuette. The identifications are not left open to doubt; they are the Emperor himself and “King Abgar”: AΥTOK ΓΟPΔΙANΟΣ, ABΓAPΟΣ BAΣΙΛEΥΣ.‎ Other coins with Gordian on the obverse show King Abgar, riding a horse, on the reverse, or a bust of him wearing a tiara.177 The coins thus offer a remarkable confirmation of the view reached by von Gutschmid in 1887 in studying the entries relating to kings of Edessa which are scattered through the eighth-century Syriac World-Chronicle, whose author should properly be identified as Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahrē.178 The text of the chronicle is now available in a modern edition, but one only usable by fluent readers of Syriac.179 In spite of the excellence of von Gutschmid's work, it should be stressed that the list as established by him, and often subsequently quoted, was the result of extensive correction and adjustment; in particular, the chronicle plainly places each of the later kings a couple of decades too early. The work needs to be completely re-done in the light of subsequent documentary evidence. In the mean time no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the numbering, or exact dates or identities of the kings, as derived from this chronicle.

It is however clear that the list, however confused in the course of transmission, does embody reflections of a genuine succession of kings known from contemporary evidence. Von Gutschmid's attempt to make sense of it was in itself entirely justified. He concluded, as regards the third century, that in A.D. 179–214 there fell the thirty-five-year reign of a King Abgar, to whom he gave the number IX, and whose full name was L. Aelius Septimius Abgar. Without all the evidence being necessary here, this is essentially correct; (p.211) this is the “King Abgar” ruling when there was the flood of A.D. 201, recorded by the Chronicle of Edessa (text to n. 173 above); the BAΣΙΛEΥΣ ABΓAPΟΣ‎ whom the coins show to have been a contemporary of Seve- rus; and the “Septimius Abgar” whose regnum is attested in AE 1984, 920, of A.D. 205 (text to n. 173 above).

Von Gutschmid concluded that there followed a joint reign of Abgar IX and his son Severus Abgar (X), and then the nominal rule as “Titularkönig” of Ma'nu son of Abgar, in A.D. 216–42, followed finally by the restoration of a genuine king, whom he thought was called Abgar (XI) Phrahates, son of Ma'nu.

The headings of the two extensive Syriac documents from the important new archive from Mesopotamia show both that there is a reflection of a genuine sequence of events in all this, but also that it now requires radical readjustment.180 Firstly, the document designated P.Euphr.Syr. A is dated 18.12.240,181 in the Seleucid year 552, year 3 of Gordian and year 2 of 'LYWS SPṬMYWS 'BGR MLK' BR M'NW PSGRYB' BR 'BGR MLK’; that is “year 2 of Aelius Septimius Abgar, son of Ma'nu, crown prince, son of Abgar the King.” As Teixidor suggested, this allows the reconstruction of a much simplified succession: firstly “the” Abgar, the contemporary of Severus (with the possibility that it was he rather than a son called Abgar who was deposed by Caracalla, as recorded by Dio 77, 12, 1a–12); then Abgar's son Ma'nu, left with the status of “crown prince” (PSGRB') for the twenty-six years 212/13–239,182 then the restoration as king of Ma'nu's son, Aelius Septimius Abgar. His second year coincided with Seleucid year 552, autumn 240-autumn 241, so his first coincided with autumn 239-autumn 240. It is thus he who appears on coins along with Gordian III.

At that point the title colonia, which had been in regular use on the coins of Edessa (text to n. 176 above) was dropped, for the name and title of the city (p.212) itself appears in the papyrus as “Orhai the fortified city which is the mother of all the cities of Mesopotamia” ('RHY B'RS MDYNT' DYT' 'M' DMDYNT' KLHYN DBYT NHRYN).

The restoration thus certainly occurred a couple of years earlier than had previously been supposed. It did not last long. As we saw, the Syriac deed of sale from Dura-Europos shows that Edessa was again a colonia in A.D. 243. But in fact colonial status had reappeared, and the king had disappeared, even earlier. For the Syriac document which Teixidor designated B is dated 1.9.242, year $ of Gordian, Seleucid year 553, and year 30 “of the liberation of the renowned Edessa Antonina Colonia Metropolis Aurélia Alexandria” (DḤRWR' D'NTWNYN' 'DYS' NṢYḤT' QLWNY' MTRP-WLS 'WRLY' 'LKSNDRY')—therefore exactly as in the deed of sale of the following year.183

Inevitably therefore, the results of modern discussions of this tangled sequence of events now require radical revision.184 Some of the “colonial” coins of Edessa under Gordian III may indeed date to after the restoration, and coins of the reign of Decius (A.D. 249–51) also have ΚΟΛ EΔEΣΣA.‎ Some time not long after that coining will have ceased, along with that of all the other cities of the Greek East.

The colonial constitution of the city continued, however. The Syriac martyr act of Shmona and Guria, relating events which seem to have occurred in A.D. 308, gives a dating (para. 1) by the strategia (B'SṬRṬYGWT') of Abba and Abgar; while the closely related martyr act of Habib the deacon, describing comparable events which perhaps date to A.D. 310, gives a similar local dating (para. 1) as “in the strategia [B'SṬRṬGWT'] of Julius and Barak.” But this narrative also, like the record of the flood of A.D. 201, represents “superintendents” of the city (ŠRYR' DMDYNT', para. 3), who play a role in the persecution, reporting Habib's activities to “the governor” (HGMWN'—ἡγεμώV‎, i.e., praeses).185 The standard Greek equivalent term for duumvir, stratēgos, (p.213) had thus taken firm root in the political structure of the city. But there does not seem to be any later Syriac literature relating to Edessa which shows that same structure continuing.

That ends the list of the exotic coloniae of Mesopotamia; none, incidentally, not even Nisibis, is referred to as a cclonia by either Ulpian or Paulus. For Ulpian, Palmyra, “situated near barbarous gentes and nationes” was perhaps exotic enough. His set of examples of coloniae (Dig. 50, 15, 1) was written under Caracalla (A.D. 211–17); as for Paulus, the transmitted text of his enumeration (50, 15, 8) seems ambiguous as to whether Caracalla was still alive at the moment of writing or not. At any rate neither makes any reference to the colonial foundations of the reign of Elagabal (A.D. 218–22), or later, a final phase of which even less is known, and which may be summed up briefly here. In very few cases is there any intelligible historical context for the grant of colonial status. But since, of course, this status was already widespread in the region, further grants may not require much explanation. Moreover, with the 220s we are approaching even closer to the period when city minting and then the “epigraphic habit,” never so developed here as for instance in North Africa or western Asia Minor, came wholly or largely to an end.

It seems that it was under Elagabal that Sidon became a colonia. Perhaps surprisingly, its colonial coinage is consistently in Latin: AUR PIA SID COL MET under Elagabal; COL AU(r) P(ia) METR SID, sometimes with AETER-NU(m) BENEFI(cium), or COL AUR PIA MET SID under Severus Alexander (A.D. 222–35).186 There are no inscriptions to attest the new status. But by a fortunate accident there is a papyrus of A.D. 267, in which a pancratiast records that he had been victorious in the “sacred iselastic oecumenical peri-porphyran isolympian contest” ἐv [KO]λωVίᾳ ΣιδOVίωV πόλει.‎187 The nature of the contest is entirely Greek; but none the less its Roman status is part of the formal titulature of the city. It is also interesting to see this and other evidence for the continuation of city athletic (and theatrical) festivals in the period of the crisis of the Empire. But no further evidence is available to illuminate the life of Sidon as a colonia.

It was also under Elagabal that the little-known city of Area or Caesarea ad Libanum, situated at the northern end of the Mount Lebanon chain, was granted the rank of colonia. In this case the explanation seems simple, for it (p.214) was the native city of the Emperor's uncle by marriage, Gessius Marcianus, the husband of his aunt, Iulia Mammaea.188 Consequently the city was also the native city of her son, Elagabal's cousin and successor, Severus Alexander.189 But it was in fact early in Elagabal's reign, soon after his coup d'état in Syria in 218, that the elevation took place.190 The evidence in this case is provided solely by the city coinage, which begins under Antoninus Pius with the designation of the city as ΚAΙΣAPEΩN ΤΩN EN ΤΩ ΛΙBANΩ‎ or ΚAΙΣAPEΙAΣ ΛΙBANΟΥ.‎ Then in the Seleucid year 530, A.D. 218/19, coins appear with the Latin legend COL CES ARIA LIBANI; under Severus Alexander as Caesar, A.D. 221/2, there is the variant COL CESA ITUR. Why the historical connections of the city with the Itureans of Mount Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon should have been recalled at this point is not known.

It seems similarly to have been under Elagabal that Petra received the rank of colonia.191 Nothing whatsoever is known of the circumstances, but we find on its coins from the reign of Elagabal the Latin legend COLONIA PETRA, sometimes also written PETLA COLONI(A). Here again, therefore, the formerly Nabatean city, whose formal character had been for a century that of a Greek city, with the title ΆδριαVή ΠέTρα MηTρόπOλις‎, was transformed into a Roman colonia. By luck, given the very slight harvest of Greek and Latin inscriptions from Petra, there is at least one which confirms the new status. A statue base from the temenos of the Qasr Bint Far'un is inscribed in Greek with the name of Valerius Iulianus, procurator of two emperors, honoured by the metropolis and mêtrokolõnia, and is dated by the two stratēgoi / duumviri in office: ΟύαλέριOV ἸOυλιαVὸV TὸV / KράTισTOV ἐπίTρOπOV TῶV / Σεββ. ή μηTρόπOλις Kαὶ μηTρO-KOλ(ωVία) / TὸV ἑαυTῆς εύεργέTηV / διà […] ρ. ΘεOδώρOυ Kαὶ ἈρισTείδOυ σTραTηγῶV.‎192

The hybrid Latin-Greek word mētrokolōnia / μηTρO-KOλωVία‎ thus appears once again (cf. text to nn. 167–69 above). The inscription, modest as it is, is (p.215) also sufficient to confirm that the normal restructuring of the city constitution took place here also.193 But in this as in almost all other respects the subsequent history and nature of Petra as a Roman-GreekNabatean city in the late Roman period remains a mystery. But note now the title appearing in P. Petra 1 (23.5.537), lines 4–5: ἐv AύγOυσTO-KOλωV ίᾳ [Ά] ṿTωVιαVῇ ἐ[π]ḷ[σήụ[ῳKαὶ] εὐ [‥]ε[î μ]η[Tρὶ]ḳ[OλωVιῶV] / ἉδριαVῇ ΠέTρᾳ μηTρOπόλει Tῆς ΤρίTης ΠαλαισTίVης ΣαλOυT[αρίας].194

In the next reign, that of Severus Alexander (A.D. 222–35), the other major city of the province of Arabia, Bostra (known since Trajan's acquisition of Arabia as Nέa ΤραιαVη BόσTρα)‎, followed suit, and gained the title colo- nia. Again, we have no historical context for the grant. Apart from a single Greek inscription which records a dedication on behalf of Gordian III by η KOλωVία‎, dated to the 134th year of the province (A.D. 239),195 the sole explicit evidence is provided by the city's coins, which have the legends COLONIA BOSTRA, N(ea) TR(aiana) A(lexandriana), COL BOSTRA and COL METROPOLIS BOSTRA / BOSTRON / BOSTREN-ORUM.196 However the inscriptions of third- and even fourth-century Bostra do reflect the existence of local offices with Latin titles. An undated Latin inscription (IGLS XIII 9029) mentions quaestoribus; but, more important, one of 323/6 is dated inl KOυαίσTOρβίας‎ (IGLS XIII 9112), while two men are described as άπO φλάμεVOς‎ (IGLS XIII 9008–9). These texts are undated, but surely derive from the third century. However there is nothing else in the attested titulature of city officials in this period to reflect its colonial status, not even the appearance of the term σTραTηγός.‎197 We can be sure that the normal language of Bostra, even for legal purposes, continued to be Greek: the fact is explicitly attested in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 3054) recording the sale of a slave at “Bostra in Syria” in A.D. 265, KαTά δίπλωμα ἙλληVιKόV.‎ Yet the document makes curiously insistent use of what seem to (p.216) be Roman tribal names: φυλῆς ΆV‎[…]—Aniensis? […]εργια‎—Sergia? and φυλῆς Ῥωμ ..ας‎—Romilia?198 As elsewhere, we are confronted with complex mutual influences whose overall effect we cannot claim to understand.

Nothing suggests that further grants of colonial status followed in the reign of Gordian III (A.D. 238–44), in spite of the Persian campaign on which he met his death. But several such grants seem to have come in the reign of his successor Philip (A.D. 244–49). In some instances the evidence is minimal. All that we know of Damascus as a colonia is the legend COL DAMAS METR on coins from Philip's reign to that of Gallienus.199 Other cases are clearer. One is Flavia Neapolis (present-day Nablus) in Samaria, which had been made a city by Vespasian. Under Philip the new colonial status is reflected in a remarkable variety of different Latin coin legends: COL SERG NEAPOL; COL IUL NEAPOLI; NEAPOLIS COLON; NEAPOLI NEOCORO COL. Then, under Gallus and Volusianus, there is COLON(IA) NEAPOLI(S).200 In this case it so happens that a rabbinic source, a commentary on Lamentations, seems to provide a reflection of the new rank: “After Jerusalem was destroyed Caesarea became a metropolis [MṬRWP-WLYN], Antipatris a city [MDYNH] and Neapolis a colonia [QLWNYY'].”201 The Midrash on Lamentations is thought to date to the fifth century. If so, it is interesting, and consonant with the other evidence, that Caesarea's status as a metropolis should be more visible than that as colonia; but the more recent grant, of colonial status to Neapolis still attracts attention.

(p.217) In parallel with that there is of course the much better-known case of Philippopolis in the northern Hauran, founded as a city with the rank of colonia by its most famous citizen, Philip “the Arab.” The place will perhaps have been a substantial village before its elevation, though nothing is in fact known of its earlier name (probably, but not certainly, related to its present name, Shahba), of its character as an urban conglomeration, or of its degree of self-government; it may even be (as Segal, n. 206 below, suggests) that the new city was built on a virgin site. This lack of information is unfortunate but also surprising, for the physical remains of the substantial villages, and occasional towns (Canatha and Soueida/Dionysias), of this region, with their rich crop of inscriptions illustrating village self-government, allied with intensive study in recent decades, have made this one of the best-known regions of the Roman Near East.202

The Emperor, M. Iulius Philippus, born in about A.D. 204, was the son of a local notable of equestrian rank, Iulius Marinus, both of whose sons embarked on prominent equestrian careers.203 The notion that we are concerned with a family of low-class brigands (Epit. de Caes. 28, 4) can safely be dismissed; more probably they were quite substantial landowners. The refoundation of the place as a city with the rank of colonia had a considerable impact both locally, in the wider Syrian region, and in the historical tradition on Philip. In the town itself we find the building, in the very distinctive black basalt of the region, of a shrine dedicated to the now deified father of the Emperor, Marinus: θεòς MαρίVOς‎ or Divus Marinus.204 The theatre of Phi- lippopolis, also in black basalt, and situated close to the sanctuary, seems to have been built at the same time.205 So, probably was the main street, along with the walls and gates.206 The constitution of the new city is not illustrated (p.218) by any documentary evidence; but a Greek inscription contains a dedication for the safety of Philip and his son by three bouleutai, πρOεδρίᾳ MαρρίVOυ, ἔTOυς πρώTOυ Tῆς πόλεως·207 Coins of the reign of Philip (but not after) have the Greek legend ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΠΟΛΙΤΩN ΚΟΛΩNΙAΣ.‎208 It was very likely of this new foundation that someone at Sakkaia (later Maximianopo- lis, now Shaqqa), a few miles away was thinking when he put up a verse epigram ending with the words εύTυχίTω ἡ KOλωVία‎ — “Good luck to the colonia209

Rather further afield, the author of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, written a few years later, probably in Emesa, noticed the adornment of this city and of one other new colonia in the vicinity, Bostra, but not specifically their new formal status: “Now bedeck yourselves, cities of the Arabs, with temples and stadiums, agoras and streets, glorious wealth, and statues of gold and silver and ivory … Bostra and Philippopolis.”210 The new foundation also achieved a mention in Aurelius Victor's brief account of the reign of Philip, written over a century later: conditoque apud Arabiam Philippopoli oppido (Caes. 28, 1). Here too, as so often, and almost universally in the fourth century, the specific status of colonia has dropped out of sight.

With that the list of coloniae in the Near East is almost complete: the very uncertain cases of Ascalon, Gadara, and Gerasa, none of which produced any colonial coins, need not be discussed in detail.211 There remains, firstly, Dura- (p.219) Europos, which also never minted its own coins, but where a papyrus contract of divorce of A.D. 254, almost the latest document from the history of the town, gives it a title which possibly reflects both its foundation in the early Hellenistic period and a new Roman status: ἐv KOλωVείᾳ Eύρẉπ[αίωV ΣελεύKOυ] NείKάTOρOς [T]ῇ ἱερậ [Kαὶ] ἀ[σύλ]ω Kαι α[ύ]TOVόμ[ω].‎ The title is enough to give substance to a couple of other references, one with the loan-word όλωVες,‎ in the plural, among the inscriptions in Dura, suggesting that the title had been conferred here too, by which emperor we do not know.212

The same three Greek titles, “sacred, inviolate, and autonomous,” are used to describe the city of Gaza in an inscription from Portus near Rome, dating to the reign of Gordian III.213 It seems clear that the place was not yet a colonic. But a lead weight from Gaza itself shows that it too did become one at some point: KOλωVίας Γάζης, ἐπὶ ἩρῴδOυ ΔωφάVTOυ.‎214 It is perhaps paradoxical that this relatively obscure place should not only have gained such an honour, but should also have been the location of quite extensive narratives relating to the fourth and fifth centuries, which duly confirm that it then had a colonial constitution. The first is the brilliantly evocative Vita of Hilarion by Jerome, covering the first half of the fourth century.215 Being in Latin, it can of course deploy the correct terminology. We thus find that the chief official of the city is a Gazensis duumvir (ch. 20). Confirmation is offered by Sozomenus' Ecclesiastical History, which speaks of σTραTηγOί‎ (5, 3); and perhaps by Mark the Deacon's Life of the Bishop Porphyry, which speaks of “the two leading men,” TῶV δύO πρωTβυόVTωV‎, named Timotheos and Epiphanios, along with a dêmekdikos and some eirēnarchoi (25), in office in the last couple of years of the century. However, two chapters later (27) he speaks of (p.220) three prōteuontes; if this is not a simple error, it could mean the two duumviri (?) and the ecdicus, or defensor.

Neither Jerome nor Mark the Deacon explicitly refers to the city as a colonia; if their evidence suggests that the city still had a colonial constitution, it is only implicitly. So far as is known, the city had never minted any colonial coins; and if any coloniae were still benefitting from remission of direct taxation, Mark's narrative categorically implies (41) that Gaza was not among them.216


It is not entirely unsuitable that this survey of the coloniae of the Roman Near East should end on so uncertain a note. From one point of view the discussion might serve to emphasise how fragile, limited, and disparate is the evidence for the physical nature, social composition, self-government, and collective images of cities in this region under Roman rule. From another, however, it might serve to suggest how considerable the changes brought about by Roman rule were. Even if we ignore fundamental issues of social history such as the extension of cultivation, the growth of substantial villages in many regions, and the efflorescence of places calling themselves towns, Roman rule profoundly affected the personal and collective identities by which people lived. Quite outside the list of places which became coloniae, Latin placenames, from “Julias,” “Livias,” and “Tiberias” onwards, were scattered liberally across the map of the Near East, while Latin personal names, and then the Roman tria nomina, found their way into common use, not only in Greek but in Semitic languages.

From the strictly linguistic point of view it is also revealing that the Near East was a zone in which Latin, Greek, and Semitic languages operated in a complex set of interrelationships. So colonia and colonus could become KOλωVία‎, or KOλωVεία‎, and KόλωV‎, and these in their turn QLNY', or QLWNY', and QWLWN. In the form of a loan-word colonia and its cognates found their way into several different Semitic languages: Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, Palmyrene, and Syriac. Since Nabatean remained in use until the fourth century, it is not impossible that the word might one day turn up here too.

The main wave of grants of colonial status, beginning under Septimius Severus, immediately preceded, or accompanied, Caracalla's grant of Roman (p.221) citizenship for all the inhabitants of the Empire. The status thus automatically lost one aspect of its significance, to be absorbed into the wider range of Romanising influences in the Greek East, a mutual interaction which was to give birth to the “Roman” Empire ruled from Constantinople. Whether taxation privileges were maintained is obscure, as is the real significance and real applicability of ius Italicum, as a right conferring on the possession of land in the provinces the status of full ownership in Roman law. Any discussion of this right ought at least to start from the fact that one of the two fullest accounts of its distribution (both very brief) comes from Domitius Ulpianus, a native of a pseudo-colonia, Tyre, of the Severan period, and the other from his contemporary Paulus. That in itself is a puzzle, for if there is one item of social and cultural history which stands out from this survey of the coloniae, it is that it was primarily the earliest of them, Berytus, with Heliopolis as part of its territory, later turned into an independent colonia, which created a real and enduring island of Romanitas and of the use of Latin in the Near East. (But recently published inscriptions show that the same was true of Caesarea, at any rate until the end of the third century.) It was a function of that “Roman” character that Berytus gave birth to law schools (not a law school) which continued to attract students until the Byzantine period. It was the city as a whole which fostered the study of Roman law. Thus Eunapius (VS 490) describes Anatolius, a native of the place who rose to the praetorian prefecture in the 350s, as “rising to the summit of what is called legal learning, as having as his native city Berytus, which is regarded as the mother of such studies.”

Even Berytus, however, founded in and absorbing an existing Graeco- Phoenician city, had from the beginning minted coins like a Greek city; in continuing to do so it expressed its identity as a city in a way unlike all except one of the Roman coloniae of the Latinspeaking part of the Empire (see n. 4 above). The evidence, however scattered and inadequate, shows that the later coloniae, which nearly all minted coins, might do so either in Latin or in Greek. It shows equally clearly that colonia, or KOλωV ία, competed as a status designation with the specifically Greek term metropolis.

Thus to all appearances—and appearances are all that the evidence allows us to grasp—the coloniae of this region, Berytus apart, were gradually reabsorbed into their environment, as Greek cities among others, with only the structure of their magistracies, and occasional reappearances of the word KOλωVία in their formal titulature to single them out. For Jerome, recording Paula's pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the 380s, of all the cities (Tyre, Sidon, Caesarea, Aelia itself) which were or had been coloniae, only Berytus still earned the title Romana colonia (Ep. 108, 8). Very little, so far as we know, (p.222) remained of that brief but very distinctive phase, occupying roughly the first half of the third century, which momentarily gave a very precise meaning to the notion of “Graeco-Roman” civilisation as represented by cities, and also saw both the largest number of individual city mints (under Septimius Severas for the Greek East as a whole, and under Elagabal for the Syro-Palestinian region) and the greatest overall volume of production of city coinages. But in the third quarter of the century all such minting ceased.217 Thereafter our quite extensive evidence for the life of this region and its cities provides no more than the most slight and erratic evidence to suggest that the status of colonia was still remembered. Only Berytus, the earliest and most profoundly Romanised of these colonial foundations, continued to play its historic role as the source of Roman law for the early Byzantine world.


(*) First published in H. Solin and M. Kajava, eds., Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History (Helsinki, 1990), 7–58.

This paper, a Vorarbeit for The Roman Near East (31 B.C.–A.D. 337) (1993), owed an immense amount to comments, corrections, and additions from various friends and colleagues, Sebastian Brock, Hazel Dodge, Louis H. Feldman, Martin Goodman, Christopher Howgego, Beniamin Isaac, Nikos Kokkinos, Barbara Levick, Aharon Oppenheimer, Jean- Paul Rey-Coquais, and Alia Stein. I was also very grateful to Heikki Solin and his colleagues in Helsinki for the colloquium in autumn 1987 which provided the impulse for the paper, and for contributions on that very enjoyable occasion, and to Mika Kajava for the care taken in the editing of this complex text.

(1) . F. Kornemann, RE I-V (1901), s.v. “coloniae,” cols. 511–88, in col. 560; “Die Geschichte der römischen Kolonisation ist die Geschichte des römischen Staates.”

(2) . For a sketch of some of the issues, see F. Millar, “Empire, Community and Culture in the Roman Near East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and ArabsJournal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987): 143; see also F. Millar, The Roman Near East (1993).

(3) . This formulation presupposes the validity of a particular view of the earlier history and status of Heliopolis, discussed more fully below.

(4) . The coloniae of Spain, Africa, and Gaul ceased to mint, as did other towns in these regions, in the Julio-Claudian period. The one remarkable exception to the rule that coloniae in the Latinspeaking provinces did not mint after the mid-first century is provided by Viminacium, which minted between the reigns of Gordian and Gallienus.

(5) . L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (1953), no. 72.

(6) . For Greek, see H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (1974), 62 and 108–10. For Semitic inscriptions, see M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, Nomenclatura pubblica e sacra di Roma nelle epigrafisemitiche (1970), 108 (colonia, colonus); 117–18 (duumvir, duumviratus). In the latter case the relevant transliterated forms are all borrowed from the Greek equivalents. See, for comparative material, S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehn- wörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targumim (1898–99), and A. Schall, Studien iiber griechische Fremdwörter im Syrischen (1960). For QLNY', see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim (repr. 1950), 1379. For linguistic interplay, note also , “I Semiti e Roma: appunti di una lettura di fonti semitiche,” Sertã Histórica Antiqua I (1986), 145. Martin Goodman drew my attention to further uses of colonia as a loan-word in the Babylonian Talmud: Sukkah 45a; Yebamoth 115b; Baba Bathra 4a. QLNY' unfortunately does not find a place in D. Sperber, A Dictionary of Latin and Greek Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (1984).

(7) . C. Clermont-Ganneau, Repertoire d'épigraphie semitique II, no. 1054 = CIS II 4401; (Greek) IGR III 1035 = OGIS 588. See M. A. R. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (1970), 225 and pl. 144.

(8) . See the useful presentation of these coinages, and their disappearance, by K. Harl, Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, A.D. 180–275 (1987).

(9) . For this point, see Millar (n. 2), 156. Note, however, the two Palmyrene inscriptions published and discussed by M. Gawlikowski, Syria 48 (1971): 412–13, and Le templepalmyré-nien (1973), 76, nos. 10–11, of which one dates to 272, while its companion (of 273?) seems to refer to Aurelian—['W]RLYNWS QSR. Note also the pair of Greek and Palmyrene inscriptions of A.D. 279/80, M. Gawlikowski, Ann. Arch. Ar. Syr. 36–37 (1986–87): 167, no. 8.

(10) . Bab. Talmud, Avodah Zara, 10a. Note that in Tiberias: From the Foundation to the Moslem Conquest (1988), 96–97 (Hebrew), Y. Meshorer claims to read COL on coins of the city under Elagabal. I owe this reference to Alia Stein.

(11) . Among more recent works on this major topic, note F. Vittinghoff, Römische Kolo- nisation und Biirgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus (1952); B. M. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967); P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.–A.D. 14 (1971), chap. 15 and app. 15; L.J. F. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy, 47–14 B.C. (1983); J. C. Mann, Roman Colonisation and Veteran Settlement during the Principate (1983).

(12) . For the history of the city, see R. Mouterde and J. Lauffray, Beyrouth ville romaine: histoire et monuments (1952); R. Mouterde, “Regards sur Beyrouth phenicienne, hellenistique et romaine,” Mél. Univ. St. Joseph 40 (1964): 145; N. Jidejian, Beirut through the Ages (1973); J. Lauffray, “Beyrouth Archéologie et Histoire, époques grécoromaines I. Période hellénistique et Haut-Empire romain,” ANRW II.8 (1977), 135. For Berytus as a colonia, see B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East (1990), 318–21, a study to which this paper owes much.

(13) . Geog. 16, 2, 19 (756), Loeb trans.

(14) . For the details, see Schürer, Vermes, and Millar, History I (1973), 187–89.

(15) . For an excellent survey of the history of the region, to which what follows owes much, see J.-P. Rey-Coquais, “Syrie romaine, de Pompée à Diocletien,” JRS 68 (1978): 44.

(16) . R. Helm, Die Chronik des Hieronymus (1956), 166: Coloniae Berytum (sic) et Patras deductae. Bosforum Agrippa capit.

(17) . See J.-M. Roddaz, “Marcus Agrippa,” BEFAR 253 (1984): 431–33, depending, however, on a combination of Strabo 8, 7, 5 (387), referring to a settlement of legionaries subsequent to Actium, and Pausanias 7, 18, 7, describing the establishment of a new colonia with a civilian population from the surrounding region. No certain chronological sequence can be deduced. For arguments for an early date for the settlement of at least some veterans in each place, see J. G. P. Best, “Colonia Iulia Equestris and Legio Decima Equestris,” Talanta 3 (1971): 1.

(18) . G. E Hill, BMC Phoenicia (1910), lv. f., e.g., no. 51 and pl. VIII.10. See R. Mouterde, MUSJ 40 (1964): 145, on 164–65.

(19) . Josephus, BJ 1, 408–16; Ant. 15, 331–41. On Caesarea, see below.

(20) . Josephus, BJ 1, 422. Loeb trans. Not repeated in Ant.

(21) . BJ 7, 39: ή δ’ iarlv iv rrj ΦOιVίKT] πόλίς 'PωμαίωV άπOίKOς.

(22) . For the literary and archaeological evidence for Roman Berytus, see, above all, Mou- terde and Lauffray (n. 12).

(23) . See, e.g., F. Millar, “Introduction: The Greek World and Rome,” in S. Macready and F. H. Thompson, Roman Architecture in the Greek East (1987). Hazel Dodge, however, pointed out to me that recent discoveries had revealed more amphitheatres than previously known.

(24) . Josephus, Ant. 19, 335–37.

(25) . See L. Robert, Lesgladiateurs dans I'Orientgrec (1940; repr. 1971), 31–32.

(26) . Josephus, Ant. 20, 211–12: Kαὶ TὴV πâσαVδὲ πόλιV ἀVδριάVTωV ἀVαθέσεσιV Kαὶ Tαîς TῶV ἀρχαίωV ἀπO-TύπOις εἰKόσιVἐKόσμει.‎

(27) . Josephus, BJ 1, 414.

(28) . AE 1976, 678.

(29) . For the coloniae in Pisidia, see Levick (n. 11), chaps. 1112; for Corinth, see Corinth VIII.3: The Inscriptions, 1926–1950 (1966), 18–19.

(30) . ILS 1234.

(31) . See, e.g., Bull. Mus. Beyrouth 7 (1944–45): 60, no. 2 = AE 1950, 230, a dedication to Iulia Domna.

(32) . See R. Cagnat, “M. Sentius Proculus de Beyrouth,” Syria 7 (1926): 67; AE 1926, 150; H. Devijver, Pros, milit. Equestr. II, S. 25.

(33) . CIL I-V 160, subsequently republished; see R. Mouterde, “Monuments et inscriptions de Syrie et du Liban 1. L'emplacement du Forum de Béryte,” MUSJ 25 (1942–43): 23, whence the following identifications are derived.

(34) . See M. Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (1982), 102; F. Coarelli, Il Foro romano II: Período repubblicano e augusteo (1985), 36–37.

(35) . For Marsyas on coins of Berytus, see BMC Phoenicia, 56–57. See P. Veyne, “Le Mar- syas ‘colonial’ et l'indépendence des cités,” Rev. Phil. 35 (1961): 87. Cf. F. W. Klimowsky, “The Origin and Meaning of Marsyas in the Greek Imperial Coinage,” Isr. Num. Journ. 6–7 (1982–83): 88; and for a reassertion of an original connection with colonial foundations, Torelli (n. 34), 91–92. For ius Italicum, note also M. Malavolta s.v. in Diz. Epig. I-V, fasc. 73–74 (1985), 2333–39.

(36) . Syria 5 (1924): 109, nos. 3–4 = AE 1924, 137–38.

(37) . Syria 20 (1939): 315 = AE 1940, 171.

(38) . See F. Coarelli, Il Foro Boario dalle origini alia fine della Repubblica (1988), chap. 3.

(39) . For the site and the temple, see D. Krencker and W. Zschietzschmann, Römische Tem- pel in Syrien I (1938), 1–3, with vol. II, 11.7 (map) and 2.

(40) . Suetonius, degram. 24.

(41) . From Heliopolis and its vicinity, e.g., IGLS VI 2781 (L. Antonius Naso, career beginning with centurionate); IGLS VI 2786/7 (L. Gerellanus Fronto, primuspilus); IGLS VI 2796 (C. Velius Rufus). Common soldiers: ILS 2483 (Coptos); AE 1929, 20; 1934, 267 (both Carnuntum); 1940, 84 (Rome). Another is attested in the military documents from Masada, published by H. M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents (1989), no. 722, to whose commentary I owe these references.

(42) . H. Crouzel, Grégoire le Thaumaturge remerciement à Origène (Sources Chrétiennes 148, 1969), 5/62: ἡ TῶV BηρυTίωV πόλις ἡ δὲ Oὐ μαKρὰV ἀπέχOυσα TῶV ἐVTαύθα [Syria Palae- stina] πόλιςῬωμαϊKωTέρα πως, Kαὶ TῶV VόμωV TOύTωV εἶVαι πισTευθεῖσα παιδευTήριOV.‎

(43) . SEG XXVI, 1456, with references to the literature.

(44) . For the later history, see P. Collinet, Histoire de 1'école de droit de Béryte (1925).

(45) . CAHXI1 (1936), 626, quoted by Vittinghoff (n. 11), 134.

(46) . BMC Phoenicia, lxvi–ixi. A dolphin-and-trident type had, however, appeared under Augustus (no. 47).

(47) . Suda, ed. Adler II, 414, s.v. ἝρμιππOς, BηρύTιOς, ἀπὸ Kώμης μεσOγαίOυ..‎

(48) . Le Bas-Waddington, no. 1855 = CIG III 4536 = IGR III 1078: KOίραVε KώμωV.

(49) . See, e.g., Le Bas-Waddington, no. 1856 = CIL III 155: Iovi Balmarcodi; 1857 = IGR III 1082: θεῷ BαλμαρKῶδι;OGIS 589 = IGR III 1081; Clermont-Ganneau, Rec. Arch. Or. 1 (1888): 94 and 103–4, nos. 2–18.

(50) . W. Henzen, ILS III, no. 5617, reprinted along with CIL III 155.

(51) . Le Bas-Waddington, no. 1858 = CIL III 158; OGIS 590 = IGR III 1079; Clermont- Ganneau (n. 49), 112, no. 12.

(52) . ILS 300.

(53) . See A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces2 (1971), 287–88 and n. 85; cf. J.-P. Rey-Coquais, IGLS VI: Baalbek et Beqa' (1967), 34–35; JRS 68 (1978): 52.

(54) . Dig. 50, 15, 1, 2.

(55) . E.g., IGLS VI 2937, a dedication to Antoninus Pius by the colon[i s]plendidissitnae [col(oniae)]; 2793–94, probably of the second century; 2759, King Agrippa (I or II), patrono col.; 2760, C. Iulius Sohaemus, patronocoloniae; also 2795. Note also 2942 from Niha: Q. Vesius Patilianus, flamen au[g.], dec. Ber., quaestor colfonorum?) col(oniae?).

(56) . IGLS VI 2791.

(57) . IGLS VI 2936; Rey-Coquais, JRS 68 (1978): 52. ForNiha, see the important study by Rey-Coquais, “Des montagnes au désert: Baetocécé, le pagus Augustus de Niha, la Ghouta à lest de Damas,” in E. Frézouls, ed., Sociétés urbaines, sociétés rurales dans l'Asie Mineure et ia Syrie hellénistiques et romaines (1987), 198–207, emphasising the contrast with Heliopolis itself.

(58) . IGLS VI, 35 and 40.

(59) . IGLS VI 37–38. For the architectural remains, see T. Wiegand, Baalbek I–III (1921–25); cf. M. Lyttelton, Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity (1974), chaps. 68, and F. Ragette, Baalbek (1980).

(60) . F. Millar, “The Problem of Hellenistic Syria,” in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, eds., Hellenism and the East (1987), 110 (= chapter 1 of the present volume).

(61) . Y. Hajjar, La triade d'Héliopolis-Baalbek I–II (1977); III (1985). The quotation is from vol. II, 511–12.

(62) . Hajjar (n. 61), I, no. 1 = IGLS VI, 2990.

(63) . See IGLS VI, index v.

(64) . Hajjar (n. 6l), I, 223–24, nos. 196–97·

(65) . Hajjar (n. 61), I, 221, no. 195·

(66) . Hajjar (n. 61), I, 227–28, nos. 199–207, 216, 218.

(67) . Hajjar (n. 61), I, nos. 212–14.

(68) . Hajjar (n. 61), I, no. 211.

(69) . For the cult beyond its native areas, whose ramifications cannot be followed here, see Hajjar (n. 61), I, 188–220, 261–416.

(70) . Hajjar (n. 61), I, 318, no. 268 (Athens); 341, no. 281 (Zellhausen, Germania Superior), a dedication by a praefectus cohortis from Berytus (the only examples).

(71) . Expositio totius mundi etgentium 25 (Sources Chrétiennes 124, ed. J. Rougé [1966], 158).

(72) . B. Isaac, “Roman Colonies in Judaea: The Foundation of Aélia Capitolina,” Talanta 12–13 (1980–81): 31 (reprinted with revisions in B. Isaac, The Near East under Roman Ride, Selected Papers [1998]).

(73) . Plin., Nat. Hist, 5, 75: Colonia Claudi Caesaris Ptolemais, quae quondam Acce.

(74) . P. Thomsen, “Die römischen Meilensteine der Provinzen Syria, Arabia und Palae- stina,” ZDPV 40 (1917): 1, on 18, no. 9, a2 (from the Nahr el-Ghadir, south of Beirut): [Nero Cljaudius [Caesar Au]g(ustus) Germanicus [trib. potest.] bis, cos. [designa]tus iterum [viam?] ah Anti- ochea [munivit? ad njovam colon[ia]m [Ptolemaidja…. See R. G. Goodchild, “The Coast Road of Phoenicia and Its Roman Milestones,” Berytus 9 (1988–89): 91 and pi. xx.

(75) . For the evidence, see Schurer, Vermes, and Millar, History II, 121–25; cf. N. Kashtan, “Akko-Ptolemais: A Maritime Metropolis in Hellenistic and Early Roman Times, 332 B.C.E.-70 C.E., as Seen through the Literary Sources,” Med. Hist. Rev. 3 (1988): 37.

(76) . See L. Kadman, The Coinage of Akko-Ptolemais (1961); see, for revisions of Kadman's views, H. Seyrig, “Le monnayage de Ptolmais en Phénicie,” RN 4 (1962): 29 = Scripta Numismática (1986), 261; “Deux émissions coloniales incertaines,” RN 11 (1969): 47, who discusses, on p. 158, the legend COL. C(onstans?) ST PTOL, found on some examples. I owe to Alia Stein the information that the Greek coinage of Ptolemais terminates by A.D. 51/2, rather than 52/3 as Kadman states.

(77) . M. Avi-Yonah, “Newly-Discovered Latin and Greek Inscriptions,” QDAP 12 (1946): 84, 85, no. 2 = AE 1948, 142.

(78) . Avi-Yonah (n. 77), 86, no. 3 = AE 1948,143. J. Meyer, “A Centurial Stone from Shavei Tziyyon,” Scripta Classica Israelica 7 (1983–84): 119, publishes what may be a centuriation cippus from the territory of Akko. Note also the very full and suggestive study by Sh. Apple - baum, “The Roman Colony of Ptolemais—‘Ake and Its Territory,’” in his Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays (1989), 711.

(79) . Seyrig (n. 76), 43–44. Dr. C.J. Howgego kindly tells me that the numerals III, VI, X?, and XI(+?) can be read.

(80) . Josephus, BJ 2, 477.

(81) . Isaac (n. 72), 37.

(82) . Josephus, BJ 2, 67; Ant. 17, 287.

(83) . For this view, see F. T. Flinrichs, Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen (1974), 147–48. Compare, however, J. Bleicken, “Inprovinciali solo dominium populi Romani estvel Caesaris. Zur Kolonisationspolitik der ausgehenden Republik und friihen Kaiserzeit,” Chiron 4 (1974): 359, attributing the concept of ius Italicum to Augustus.

(84) . See L. Kadman, The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (1957).

(85) . BJ 4, 588–604; see Isaac (n. 72), 38–44.

(86) . M. Avi-Yonah, “Mount Carmel and the God of Baalbek,” IEJ 2 (1952): 118 = AE 1952, 206 = SEC XI-V 832 = Hajjar (n. 61), I, no. 227, and pi. lxxxvi.

(87) . AE 1964, 188 = M. L. Lehmann and K. G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Marítima (2000), no. 44. [Coloniae] Primae Fl. Aug. [Caesareae] / . . [Cleojpatra mater eius hocffieri) i(ussit); but see the better reading by Werner Eck cited there: [?Ex testamento—Ilviral(is) (?) col] Primae Fl(aviae) Aug(ustae) / [Caesareae—/—?Cleo]patra mater eius her(es) [facere iussit?].

(88) . AE 1987, 960a = Lehmann and Holum (n. 87), no. 8.

(89) . AE 1985, 830a = W. Eck, ZPE 113 (1996): I29ff. = Lehmann and Holum (n. 87), no. 10.

(90) . AE 1985, 830b = Lehmann and Holum (n. 87), no. 11. See now H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “A New Inscription from Caesarea Marítima and the Local Elite of Caesarea Marítima,” in L. Rutgers, ed., What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem. Festschrift for Gideon Foerster (2002), 371–87, which discusses the use of Latin by members of the ruling families of Caesarea.

(91) . For a useful sketch of the evidence, see A. Kindler, “The Status of Cities in the Syro-Palestinian Area as Reflected in Their Coins,” Israel Numismatic Journal 6–7 (1982–83): 76.

(92) . See, e.g., F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (1977), 409. No detailed study of the use of the term is known to me.

(93) . Kadman (n. 84), 102–51.

(94) . Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7, 1, 21a.

(95) . For the basic evidence, see Schurer, Vermes, and Millar, History I, 534–35.

(96) . Dio 69, 12, 1–2. If he meant by saying Kαὶ εἰς TὸV TOû VαOû TOû θεOû TόπOV VαὸV Tῷ Διὶ ἕTερOV ἀVTεγείραVTOς‎ that the temple of Juppiter literally stood on the site of the Temple, he was wrong.

(97) . Zonaras 11, 23C; Malaias, Chron. 279.

(98) . Chron. Pasch. 1, 474; Malaias, Chron. 279. Note the translation by E. Jeffreys, M.Jeffreys, and R. Scott (1986).

(99) . For a general account, see N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (1984), 205–6. See also H. Geva, “The Camp of the Tenth Legion at Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconstruction,” IEJ 34 (1984): 239; R. Reich, “Four Notes on Jerusalem,” IEJ 37 (1987): 188, on 164–65.

(100) . Justin, 1 Apol. 47, 6; Eusebius, HE 4, 6, 4, quoting Ariston of Pella.

(101) . For these points, see Isaac (n. 72), 46–47.

(102) . See M. Zahrnt, “Vermeintliche Kolonien des Kaisers Hadrian,” ZPE 71 (1988): 229.

(103) . CIL III, 117 = 6649 = OGIS 600; cf. IGR III 1385 and Thomsen (n. 74), 74–75.

(104) . E. D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 312–460 (1982), 2.

(105) . See L. Kadman, The Coins of Aelia Capitolina (1956).

(106) . AE 1984, 914 = AE 1997,1562; cf. H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “Ein Ehrenbogen fur Septimius Severus und seine Familie in Jerusalem,” in E. Dabrowa, ed., Donum Amicitiae. Studies in Ancient History Offered by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of the Anniversary of the Foundation of Ancient History in the Jagiellonian University of Krakow 1997, 11–20.

(107) . Alluded to in various semi-popular reports, e.g., B. Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord (1975), 235 (ascribed to Hadrian), 237, 239. A different impression, both of the location and of the reading of the inscription, is given by N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (1984), 206.

(108) . R. W. Hamilton, “Excavations against the N. Wall, Jerusalem,” QDAP 11 (1944): on 22–23. For yet another impressionistic report of the area, see M. Magen, “Recovering Roman Jerusalem: The Excavations beneath the Damascus Gate,” Bibl. Arch. Rev. 15 (1988): 48. For a survey of the known Greek and Latin inscriptions, of all periods, from Jerusalem, see P. Thomsen, Diegriechischen und lateinischen Inschriften der StadtJerusalem (1922), with a Supplement in ZDPV 64 (1941): 203. For some updates, see B. Issac, “Inscriptions from Jerusalem after the First Revolt” and “Epigraphic Remains from the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai, eds., The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 CE) (1999), 167–79, 383–389 (in Hebrew).

(109) . Peregrinado Egeriae 47, 3–4; see P. Maraval, “Égérie, journal de voyage” (Sources Chrétiennes 296, 1982).

(110) . For these processes, see R. Ziegler, “Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer,” Chiron 8 (1978): 493.

(111) . Sifre Deut. 26, 40, in the edition by L. Finkelstein (1939; repr. 1969). I owed the reference to M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 (1983), 140, who duly observes (in his n. 101) the relevance of this to the civil war period.

(112) . Herodian 3, 3, 3–5. See Ziegler (n. 110), 474–75.

(113) . Malaias 293–94.

(114) . Dig. 50, 15,1, 3. Cf. 50, 15, 8, 3 (Paulus).

(115) . H. Seyrig, “Un poids de Laodicée,” Syria 40 (1963): 30: ἔTOυς θ´ Tῆς KOλωVίας, γι´ Tῆς μηTρOπOλιTείας, T[Oû] Kαὶ γVσ´.‎ The latter figure, 253, establishes the date 205/6. Cf. the weight listed by H. Seyrig, Bull. Mus. Beyrouth 8 (1949): 64, no. 38: ἔTOυς δι´ Tῆς KOλωVείας‎ (hence A.D. 210/11).

(116) . IGR III 1012 = IGLS I-V 1265 = Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistichegreche, no. 85.

(117) . SNG, Danish National Museum: Syria, no. 366. It is curious that some of these colonial coins in Latin, as well as earlier Greek issues of the city, were counter-marked COL. See C.J. Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks (1985), no. 586.

(118) . BMC Syria, 258–63.

(119) . Eusebius, VC 4, 38–39; Sozomenus, HE 5, 3, 6–8.

(120) . BMC Syria, 290–95.

(121) . L. Okamura, “Western Legions in Baalbek, Lebanon: Colonial Coins (A.D. 244–247) of the Philippi,” Historia 37 (1988): 126. I owe to Dr. C.J. Howgego the information that the standards form part of a representation of what appears to be a group of cult statues, two of which are holding the standards.

(122) . Published by Ch. Ghadban, “Les frontières du territoire d'Héliopolis-Baalbek à la lumière de nouveaux documents,” in La géographie administrative et politique d'Alexandre à Mahomet (1982), 143, on 151 and 160 (Khirbet Choukan near the Orontes).

(123) . ILS 4287 = Hajpar (n. 61) I, no. 290, and II, pi. cxii.

(124) . ILS 9005.

(125) . IGLS VI 2935.

(126) . Dig. 50,15,1, pr; cf. 50,15, 8, 4 (Paulus): Eiusdem iuris et Tyriorum civitas a divis Severo et Antonino facta est.

(127) . So BMC Phoenicia, cxxv and 269–96, followed, e.g., by H. Ingholt, Varia Tadnwrea, in Palmyre: bilan et perspectives (1976), 101, on 122, and K. Harl (n. 8), 68. Alia Stein pointed out to me that under Elagabal coins of Laodicea sometimes show ΛAOΔΙΚEΩN or LAUDI- CEON, BMC Syria, 261–62.

(128) . For the background, see the very good account by A. R. Birley, The African Emperor, Septimius Severus (1988), chaps. 1, 2, 3.

(129) . IRT 437.

(130) . For what follows, see F. Millar, “The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation,” Proc. Catnb. Philol. Soc. 209 (1983): 55, esp. 66–67 (= chapter 2 of the present volume). For more dedications from Tyre, in Latin and Greek, see J.-P. Rey-Coquais, “Une double dédicace de Lepcis Magna à Tyr,” in A. Mastino, ed., L'Africa Romana I-V (1986), 597.

(131) . For the Roman arch of Tyre, see M. Chéhab, “Fouilles de Tyr. La nécropole I: l'arc de triomphe,” Bull. Mus. Beyrouth 33 (1983); for the inscription, 125–26, and pis. xiv–xv; cf. A E 1988, 1051. See now M. Christol, “Entre la cité et l'empereur: Ulpien, Tyr et les empereurs de la dynastie sévérienne,” in F. Chausson and É. ;Wolff, eds., Consuetudinis Amor: Fragments d'histoire romaine (IP- VIe siècles) offerts à Jean-Pierre Callu (2003), 163.

(132) . For the inscription, see M. Chéhab, “Tyr a l'époque romaine,” Mél. Univ. St. Joseph 38 (1962): 11, on 19–20. For Septimius Odenathus, see M. Gawlikowski, “Les princes de Palmyre,” Syria 62 (1985): 251.

(133) . Acta Cone. Chalcedon. 10. Concilium Universale Chalcedonense I, 1, ed. E. Schwartz (1933), 373.

(134) . I would have argued that the fact that Eusebius describes his Greek text of the letter of Maximinus to Tyre as a translation from the Latin (HE 9, 10, 7–11) is evidence for the public use of Latin there in A.D. 312, but for the publication by S. Mitchell, “Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription” JRS 78 (1988): 105, of a partial text of the same proclamation, in Latin and addressed to the Colbassenses in the province of Lycia and Pamphylia. The use of Latin is therefore not, in this context, distinctive of colonial status.

(135) . J- W. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon, and E. L. Sukenik, The Buildings at Samaria (1942), 35–36.

(136) . G. A. Reisner, C. G. Fisher, and D. G. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910 (1924), 250, no. 7, and pi. 59c: [σTρα]TηγOύVTωV ἈVVίOυ ῬO[ύφOυ …]. See Crowfoot et al. (n. 135), 36, no. 1.

(137) . BMC Palestine, 39–40, 80–81.

(138) . For this region, see L. Dilleman, Haute-Mésopotamie orientale etpays adjacents (1962); N. Pigulevskaja, Les villes de l'état iranien aux époquesparthe et sassanide (1963); D. Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq (1968).

(139) . Dio 75, 3, 2; 36, 6, 2. See Pigulevskaja (n. 138), 49–59, and for its later history as a Roman colonia, C. S. Lightfoot, “Facts and Fictions: The Third Siege of Nisibis,” Historia 37 (1988): 105.

(140) . BMC Mesopotamia, cviii–ix, 119–24.

(141) . D. Feissel and J. Gascou, “Documents d'archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.) III. Actes divers et letters (P.Euphr. 11 à 17),”Journal des Savants 2000: 157–208, no. 17.

(142) . Carrhae/Harran: see G. F. Hill, JRS 6 (1916): 150–55; BMC Mesopotamia, lxxxvii–xciv; W. Cramer, “Harran,” RAC (1985), cols. 634–35. (a) ΚΟΛΩNΙAΣ M H ΚAPΩN (Septimius Severus); (b) COL MET ANTONINIANA AUR and COL AUR METROPOLI ANTONI (Caracalla); (c) MHTP ΚΟΛ ΚAPPHNΩN (Gordian III). Reshaina: K.-O. Castelin, “The Coinage of Rhesaena in Mesopotamia,” Num. Notes and Monog. 108 (1946): ΣEΠ ΚΟΛ PHΣAINHΣΙΩN (Decius). Singara: Hill, JRS 6 (1916): 167; BMC Mesopotamia, cxiii; 134–36: AΥP ΣEΠ KOΛ ΣΙNΓAPA.

(143) . One modern map which does show this impact, though not completely, is map 27 in N. G. L. Hammond, Atlas of the Greek and Roman World in Antiquity (1981).

(144) . See the remarkable article by D. van Berchem, “Le port de Séleucie de Piérie et l'infrastructure logistique des guerres parthiques,” Bonner Jahrb. 185 (1985): 47.

(145) . AE 1972, 626–28. See H. Halfmann, Itinera Principum (1986), 81.

(146) . See J.-C. Baity, Apamée (1986); “Nouvelles données sur l'armée romaine d'Orient et les raides sassanides du milieu du IIIe siècle,” CRAI (1987): 213, and “Apamea in Syria in the Second and Third Centuries A.D.” JRS 78 (1988): 91.

(147) . Dig. 1, 5, 17. See T. Honoré, Ulpian (1982), and the review article by F. Millar, “A New Approach to the Roman Jurists,” JRS 76 (1986): 272–80 (= chapter 19 in F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East II: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire).

(148) . Dig. 50, 15, 1, 4 (Ulpian); cf. 50, 15, 8, 6 (Paulus): Imperator noster Antoninus civitatem Emisenorum coloniam et iuris Italici fecit.

(149) . See IGLSV: Émésène (1959). For the new inscription, see Ghadban (n. 122), 161.

(150) . BMC Syria, 237–41. For the relevant legends under Uranius Antoninus in A.D. 253, see H. R. Baldus, Uranius Antoninus: Münzprägung und Geschichte (1971), 67–68.

(151) . See, e.g., Libanius, Ep. 846; cf. H. Seyrig, “Caractères de l'histoire d'Émése,” Syria 36 (1959): 184.

(152) . BMC Syria, lviii—lxiii, 151–232. See also G. Downey, “The Political Status of Roman Antioch,” Berytus 6 (1939–40): 1, and K. Butcher, “The Colonial Coinage of Antiochon- the-Orontes c. A.D. 218–53,” Num. Chron. 148 (1988): 63, curiously giving relatively little attention to the colonial bronze coins as such, as opposed to imperial coins minted there.

(153) . J. H. W. C. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (1972), contains no allusion to colonial status.

(154) . Libanius, Or. 1, 3, trans. A. F. Norman (1965).

(155) . D. Feissel and J. Gascou, “Documents d'archivesromainsinédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.) I. Les petitions (P.Euphr. 1 à 5),” Journal des Savants (1995): 65–119.

(156) . See D. Schlumberger, La Palmyrène du Nord-Ouest (1951), and H. Seyrig, “Bornes frontières de la Palmyrène,” Syria 20 (1939): 43.

(157) . M. Gawlikowski, “Palmyre et l'Euphrate,” Syria 60 (1983): 53. Note the excellent map on 54.

(158) . For the tax law, see CIS II, 3, 3913. Note also J. Teixidor, “Le tarif de Palmyre I. Un commentaire de la version palmyrénienne,” Aula Orientalis 1 (1983): 235, and J. F. Matthews, “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East,” JRS 74 (1984): 157. For a discussion of the officials appearing in the tax law, see J. Teixidor, Unport romain du desert: Palmyre (1984), 59–60. Cf. also M. Zahrnt, “Zum Fiskalgesetz von Palmyra und zur Geschichte der Stadt in hadrianischer Zeit,” ZPE 62 (1986): 279.

(159) . For this see D. Schlumberger, “Les gentilices romains des Palmyréniens,” Bull. d'Ét. Or. 9 (1942–43): 53, the latest detailed tabulation of the evidence; the article is also essential for the points which follow. Note also J. K. Stark, Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions (1971).

(160) . (a) CIS II, 3, 3971: mil. xiv col. Pal.; (b) A. Poidebard, La trace de Rome dans le désert de Syrie (1934), 200: D. N. Imp. Caes. G. Val. Diocletiano p. 1. (?) Invicto Aug. Col. Palm, mil. XXVIII.

(161) . IGR III 1046 = J. Cantineau, Inventaire des Inscriptions de Palmyre III (1930), no. 5.

(162) . IGR III 1033 = OGIS 640 = CIS II.3, 3932 = Inventaire III, no. 22.

(163) . IGR III 1047 = CIS II.3, 3934 = Inventaire III, no. 14.

(164) . So Schlumberger (n. 159), 59–60.

(165) . IGR III 1036 = OGIS 644 = CIS II.3, 3937 = Inventaire III, no. 12. For his identity, see Schlumberger (n. 159), 60.

(166) . IGR III 1040 = CIS II.3, 3939 = Inventaire III, no. 10.

(167) . IGR III 1045 = CIS II.3, 3942 = Inventaire III, no. 7.

(168) . IGR III 1044 = CIS II.3, 3940 = Inventaire III, no. 9: ἐπίTρOπOV ΣεβασTOû δOυKηVάριOV Kαὶ ἀργαπέTηV‎ /'PTRP' DQNR' W'RGBṬ'. Cf. IGR III 1042 = CIS II.3, 3941 = Inventaire III, no. 8 (a.d. 265); and OGIS 645 = IGR III 1043 = CIS II.3, 3943 = Inventaire III, no. 6 (A.D. 267).

(169) . IGR III 1032 = Inventaire III, no. 3. For restorations, see D. Schlumberger, “L'inscription d'Hérodien: remarques sur Fhistoire des Princes de Palmyre,” Bull. d'Ét. Or. 9 (1942–43): 35, and M. Gawlikowski, “Les princes de Palmyre,” Syria 62 (1985): 251, on 255, no. 10.

(170) . For a survey, see W. Szaivert, “Die Miinzen von Palmyra,” in M. Ruprechtsberger, ed., Palmyra, Geschichte, Kunst unci Kultur der syrischen Oasenstadt (1987), 244.

(171) . See F. Millar (n. 2), 156.

(172) . For a brief sketch, see F. Millar (n. 2), 159–62.

(173) . Text and translation by R. Hallier, “Untersuchungen uber die edessenische Chronik,” Texte und Untersuchungen IX (1892), 84–85 (trans.), 145–46 (text). The text is also reprinted in F. Rosenthal, ed., An Aramaic Handbook II. 1 (1967), 23–25. English translation by J. Segal, Edessa: “The Blessed City” (1970), 24–25.

(174) . R Dura 28; revised text by J. Goldstein, “The Syriac Bill of Sale from Dura- Europos,” JNES 25 (1906): 1, text also in Rosenthal (n. 173), 25–27 (Syriac only), and in H. J. W. Drijvers, Old-Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (1972), 54–57. Now reprinted, along with the two new Syriac parchments of the same period from the Euphrates archive (see n. 181 below), as Pi in J. W. Drijvers and H. J. F. Healey, The Old-Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (1999), app. I.

(175) . Goldstein (n. 174) denies that there is any visible trace of the final T and ρ.

(176) . BMC Mesopotamia, xciv–cvii, 91–118.

(177) . See H. Gesche, “Kaiser Gordian mit dem Pfeil in Edessa” Jahrb.f Num. u. Geldg. 19 (1969): 47.

(178) . A. von Gutschmid, “Untersuchungen iiber die Geschichte des Königreichs Osroene,” Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint Pétersbourg, 7th ser., XXXV (1887).

(179) . J.-B. Chabot, ed., “Incerti Auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum,” Corpus Scriptorum Orientalium, Scriptores Syri III. 11–II (1927–33). For a very useful study of this work, see W. Witakowski, The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahrē (1987).

(180) . J.Teixidor, “Les derniers rois d'Edesse d'après deuxnouveaux documents syriaques,” ZPE 76 (1989): 219. I was extremely grateful to J. Teixidor and D. Feissel for a preliminary text of the archive, and for permission to quote the “colonial” titles which appear there. For my suggested reconstruction and dating of the entries in the Chronicle, see Millar (n. 2), app. 3.

(181) . J. Teixidor, “Deux documents syriaques du IIIe siècle après J.-C., provenant du Moyen Euphrate,” CRAI (1990): 147; cf. S. Brock, “Some New Syriac Documents from the Third Century AD,” Aram 3.1–2 (1991): 259; B. Aggoula, “Studia Aramaica III,” Syria 69 (1992): 391. This text is reprinted as P2 in Drijvers and J. F. Healey (n. 174), app. I.

(182) . It is worth noting that a Ma ‘nu with the title PSGRYB’ is attested on a Syriac inscription from the citadel of Edessa; see H. J. W. Drijvers, Old-Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (1972), no. 27. See Segal (n. 173), 19 and pi. 29a.

(183) . See Teixidor, “Un document syriaque de fermage de 242 ap. J.-C.” Semítica 41–42 (1993): 195–208; cf. Brock and Aggoula (n. 181). This document is reprinted as P3 in Drijvers and J. F. Healey (n. 174), app. I. Note the reconstruction of the dating mentioned in n. 180.

(184) . See, e.g., R. Duval, Histoire d'Edesse (1892), 69–70; A. R. Bellinger and C. B. Welles, “A Third-Century Contract of Sale fromEdessain Osrhoene,” YCS 5 (1935): 143–44; E. Kirsten, “Edessa,” RAC I-V (1959), 552–53, on cols. 556–57. For an excellent discussion of the varied accounts (and names and dates of the kings) in the chronicles, and their relation to the Syriac contract, see H. J. W. Drijvers, “Hatra, Palmyra and Edessa,” ANRW II.8 (1977), 881–82.

(185) . For these texts, and translation, see F. C. Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth (1913), 78–79.

(186) . BMC Phoenicia, lxxxvii–cxvi, 139–99. See N. Jidejian, Sidon through the Ages (1971). Dr. Howgego suggested to me that both legends and style may be due to the influence of Berytus.

(187) . Sel. Pap. II, no. 306.

(188) . PIR2, G 171; see G. W. Bowersock, “Senators from the Near East,” in S. Panciera, ed., Epigrafia e ordine senatorio II (1982), 651, on 665. I am not convinced, however, that Dig. 1, 9, 12, shows that he had been adlected to the Senate, as against Dio 78, 30, 3, who says merely that he had held procuratorships.

(189) . So Aurelius Victor, Caes. 24, 1: Aurelio Alexandre, Syriae orto, cui duplex Caesarea et Arce nomen est. Cf. HA, Sev. Alex. 1, 1; 13, 5.

(190) . BMC Phoenicia, lxxi–iii, 108–10; see H. Seyrig, “Une monnaie de Césarée du Liban,” Syria 36 (1959): 39. Non vidi J. Starcky, Area du Liban, Cahiers de I'Oronte 10 (1971–72): 103.

(191) . See S. Ben-Dor, “Petra Colonia,” Berytus 9 (1948): 41; A. Spijkerman, Coins of the Decapolis and Provinda Arabia (1978), 218–41; G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (1983), 121.

(192) . Published by J. Starcky and C. M. Bennett in Ann. Dept. Ant. Jordan 12–13 (1967–68): 45, no. xii, and in Syria 45 (1968): 60, no. xiii. See now in Sartre's IGLS XXI.4, no. 48.

(193) . Starcky and Bennett (n. 192), on pp. 47 and 62, refer to the two stratêgoi mentioned (as ‘SRTGY’) in a Nabatean inscription from Hegra / Medain Saleh, and suggest that these are in fact the annual stratêgoi / duumviri of Petra. The inscription is CIS II.1, 235, republished by Jaussen and Savignac, Mission archéologique en Arabic I (1909), 213, no. 57. Unfortunately the idea that this is a dating formula (“in the days of”—'L YMY) is removed by the different reading in J. Cantineau. Le nabatéen II (1930), 37, no. viii.

(194) . The Petra Papyri I, ed. J. Frösén, A. Arjava, and M. Lentinen (2002).

(195) . IGLS XIII 9057.

(196) . See Spijkerman (n. 191), 66–89; A. Kindler, The Coinage of Bostra (1983); M. Sartre, Bostra des origines à l'Islam (1985), 76.

(197) . For the city's institutions as reflected in the epigraphy of the region, see Sartre (n. 196), 76–77.

(198) . See H. M. Cotton, W. Cockle, and F. Millar, “The Papyrology of the Roman Near East: A Survey” JRS 85 (1995): nos. 171–72. On P. Bostra 1, see now J. Gascou, “Unités administratives locales et fonctionnaires romains. Les données des nouveaux papyrus du Moyen Euphrate et d'Arabie,” and H. M. Cotton, “Appendix: Administrative Divisions in Arabia,” in W. Eck, ed., Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1.–3. Jh. (1999), 71–73 and 90–91, respectively.

(199) . BMC Syria, lxxiv–v, 286–88.

(200) . BMC Palestine, xxv–xxxiv, 45–74. See K. W. Harl, “The Coinage of Neapolis in Samaria,” Am. Num. Soe. Mus. Notes 29 (1984): 61.

(201) . Midrash Ekha Rabbati 1.5 (ed. Buber. 1899, 65). Translated by A. Cohen in Midrash Rahbah, Lamentations, ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon (1951), 100, where the references to Antipatris and Neapolis in Buber's text are rejected, without however any reason being given. I was grateful to Aharon Oppenheimer for confirmation that Buber's text is acceptable. Antipatris had been founded by Herod the Great—see Schiirer, Vermes, and Millar, History II (1979), 167—but a remarkable confirmation of the historicity of the context is offered by coins of Antipatris from the reign of Caracalla or Elagabal, probably the latter, with the legend MAYP ANT ANΤΙΠAΤPΙΣ. See Y. Meshorer, The City Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis (1985), no. 150.

(202) . See, of course, the wellknown article by G. M. Harper, “Village Administration in the Roman Province of Syria,” YCS 1 (1928): 105; H. I. MacAdam, “Epigraphy and Village Life in Southern Syria in the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods,” Berytus 31 (1983): 103, and Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia: The Northern Sector (1986); and, above all, J.-M. Dentzer, ed., Le Hauran 1.1–2 (1985–86).

(203) . PIR2 I 407, 461, 488. For the family and the place, see now G. Amer and M. Gawlikowski, “Le sanctuaire impérial de Philippopolis,” Dam. Mitt. 2 (1985): 1.

(204) . Le Bas-Waddington, nos. 2075–76 = IGR I-V 1199–1200; A E 1928, 153 (reference only): given in full by Amer and Gawlikowski (n. 203), 12, Divo Marino eqq. ala Celerum Philippianae.

(205) . See P. Coupel and E. Frézouls, Le theatre de Philippopolis en Arabie (1956).

(206) . There has been no comprehensive analysis of these buildings since the accounts by H. C. Butter, AAES II: Architecture and Other Arts (1903), 376–96, and by R. E. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provinda Arabia III (1909), 143–79. For a survey, necessarily based on published material, see A. Segal, “Town Planning and Architecture in Província Arabia: The Cities along the ViaTraiana Nova in the 1st–3rd Centuries C.E.,” BAR Int. Ser. 419 (1988): 75–76.

(207) . Le Bas-Waddington, no. 2072 = IGR III 1196.

(208) . BMC Arabia, xli–ii, 42–43; Spijkerman (n. 191), 258–61.

(209) . IGR III 1189. Note the inscription of A.D. 238 recording that someone had dedicated a statue of the Tyche of Sakkaia, TύχηV MεγάληV ΣαKKαίας Tῇ Kυρίᾳ παTρίδι‎ (AE 1984, 921 bis).

(210) . Orac. Sib. 13, 64–73. See A. T. Olmstead, “The Mid-Third Century of the Christian Era,” Class. Philol. 37 (1942): 241, on 259–62; Baldus (n. 150), 252–55.

(211) . (a) Ascalon. The evidence consists solely of a papyrus of A.D. 359, BGU, no. 316 = L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Chrestotnathie, no. 271, 1.26: ἐv KOλωVίᾳ ΆσK[άλωVι?] Tῇ πισTῇ Kαὶ ἐλευθέρᾳ.‎ See Schiirer, Vermes, and Millar, History I, 105–8. (b) Gadara. The sole evidence is CIL III 181 = 6697 (Byblos): col. Valen. Gadara. See ZDPV 55 (1932): 76–80, and Schiirer, Vermes, and Millar, History II, 132–36. (c) Gerasa. There are two inscriptions from the city which refer, or may refer, to colonial status, but not certainly that of Gerasa itself. C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa City of the Decapolis (1938), 437, no. 179: Colonia Aur. Antoniniana; 442, no. 191: σTραTηγὸV Kα[ὶ πά]TρωVα Tῆς K[Oλω]Vείας.‎ See Kraeling, 57. Later excavations do not seem to have produced any further inscriptions bearing on this topic.

(212) . P. Dura 32, 11.4–5. Cf. F. Cumont, Fouilles de Dura-Europos (1926), 393, no. 35: πιάKλα[εἰ]σὶ KOλ(ώVωV?);‎ 404, no. 50: KόλωVες, βOυλευTαί Kαί εἱερεîς;‎ and Excavations at Dura-Europos III (1932), 51, no. 149 (statue base for Julia Domna): Aύρηλ(ιαVῶV) ΆVTωVιVιαVῶV EὐρωπαίωV ή βOυλή;V‎ (1934), 23, no. 396: KOλωVιOδ[OυραVός?].‎

(213) . IGR I 387· See C. A. M. Glucker, “The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” BAR Int. Ser. 327 (1987): 119.

(214) . IGR III 1212; Glucker (n. 213), 148, no. 42.

(215) . Migne, PL XXXIII, cols. 29–54. English translation in R.J. Deferrari, ed., Early Christian Biographies (Fathers of the Church XV, 1952), 239–80; text with introduction, Italian translation, and notes in C. Mohrmann, ed., Vite dei Santi I-V (1975). See also Glucker (n. 213), 45; H. Grégoire and M.-A. Kugener, eds., Marc le Diacre, Vie de Porphyre (1930).

(216) . The historical status of the entire narrative is, however, a matter of controversy, not least in this section. See also Glucker (n. 213), 65, n. 110.

(217) . See A.Johnston, “Greek Imperial Statistics: A Commentary,” RN 26 (1984) and Harl (N. 8).