Herodian Architecture

Recent arcaeological research has revealed a vast amount of data enabling a better undersanding of building of the Herodian period. It is possible to assume that Josephus' description (War V, V.2) may refer to a certain method of paving called Opus Sectile which was used on the Temple Mount at the end the first century BCE. This method is well known from numerous Herodian sites in this region, a paving tecnique practiced with multi-colored boards which were integrated together to form varied compositions.

This volume brings together nineteen studies by foremost experts in the period of Herod and Augustus, and highlights recent progress in elucidating the phenomenon of Herod the Great in the context of the Roman imperial order inaugurated by Augustus. They illuminate Herod’s pre-eminent role in the Augustan client network and his remarkable energies, expressed in an extensive building programme which has left substantial remains. The literary records of Herod’s life and times, primarily by Josephus, are critically examined here in relation to the documentary and archaeological evidence.

The relationship between the ancient Jewish Temple and the existing Haram al-Sharif, the enclosure housing the Dome of the Rock and Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is explored and identified using topographic and
documentary evidence, also taking into account relevant material remains.

The massive retaining walls of the Haram aI-Sharif in Jerusalem with their highly distinctive drafted-margin ashlars represent the most impressive remnant of Herod:Js Temple complex. Similar decorative drafted-margin masonry survives in the monumental Herodian enclosures at Hebron and Mamre. This study traces the development of the decorative drafted-margin style of masonry from pre-Classical Ionia through the East Greek world>to its apogee in the early Roman Empire. It is shown that the application of this decorative treatment to the walls of Herod's sacred enclosures was in keeping with the fashion of the period but certain of its features appear to indicate that Herod's builders employed it as a deliberate archaising device to recall the splendour of the ancient Israelite Temple.

Ehud Netzer was the leading figure in Herodian archaeology right up to his sudden death in October 2010, specialising in the architecture of  Herod’s palaces. In the course of his career, there was scarcely a site in Israel where there was a known Herodian palace which Netzer did not excavate. His archaeological findings were so considerable that their
significance is still being evaluated by scholars. This article examines one aspect, namely the light that has been cast on the extent of Roman influence on the art, architecture and construction methods of Herod’s extensive building projects.

In Volumes III and V of the Masada Final Reports, Ehud Netzer and Gideon Foerster highlighted the striking differences between the Northern and Western Palaces built by Herod at the site. Whereas the Western Palace is a hybrid of ancient Middle Eastern and east Greek architectural elements, the Northern Palace bears the stamp of Rome, and shows strong affinities with palatial edifices built for Augustus and Marcus Agrippa. This paper endeavours to show that the Northern Palace was consciously modelled on a pleasure boat, probably inspired by the construction of Herod’s city of Caesarea with its magnificent artificial harbour. It should then be re-dated to between about 20 and 15 BCE. This would be consistent with the assigning by Netzer of Herod’s Third Winter Palace at Jericho, which likewise displays strong Roman characteristics, to c. 15–14 BCE. An analysis is presented of the plan of the Northern Palace, which explains how it was conceived as a unitary scheme and highlights both the principles and specific proportions that were employed in its design.

Agrippa II is the first comprehensive biography of the last descendant of Herod the Great to rule as a client king of Rome. Agrippa was the last king to assume responsibility for the management of the Temple in Jerusalem, and he ultimately saw its destruction in the Judaean-Roman War.

This study documents his life from a childhood spent at the Imperial court in Rome and rise to the position of client king of Rome under Claudius and Nero. It examines his role in the War during which he sided with Rome, and offers fresh insights into his failure to intervene to prevent the destruction of Jerusalem and its Sanctuary, as well as reviewing Agrippa’s encounter with nascent Christianity through his famous interview with the Apostle Paul. Also addressed is the vexed question of the obscurity into which Agrippa II has fallen, in sharp contrast with his sister Berenice, whose intimate relationship with Titus, the heir to the Roman throne, has fired the imagination of writers through the ages. This study also includes appendices surveying the coins issued in the name of Agrippa II and the inscriptions from his reign.

Note: Maps 1 and 2 in the printed book may be difficult to view adequately. Accordingly, higher resolution versions in colour are attached.

This study demonstrates that geometrical planning on a large scale was one of the hallmarks of the building programme of Herod the Great. Never before had such a methodical approach to architectural design  been practiced in Judaea. This phenomenon was a direct consequence of Herod's adoption as a client king of Rome and his policy of close cultural integration with the Imperial power.  Other Roman influences are manifested at the same time time in building techniques (use of pozzulana concrete and walls lined in opus reticulatum) and modes of decoration (frescoes in so-called Pompeian styles and adoption of Roman mosaic and opus sectile designs).

Architectural affinities between Machaerus and the Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great have been identified in two features:
1. Stairways of the large miqveh at Machaerus and between the Court of the Priests and the Temple Sanctuary in Jerusalem.
2. Doric porticoes in both complexes.

A monumental Jewish ritual bath (miqweh) has been unearthed at the Herodian
palace-fortress of Machaerus, overlooking the northeast shore of the Dead
Sea, where John the Baptist was imprisoned and executed. In its design and
construction, it is recognisably similar to other miqwa’ot from the same period,
although this one belongs to a minority that possess their own storage tank alongside.
In canonical fashion, it has a stairway leading down towards the foot of the
pool that extends across its entire width and like many ritual baths of the late
Second Temple period, its flight of stairs is interrupted by wider landings at
regular intervals. What is special in this case is that the number and arrangement
of the stairs compare fairly closely to what we know about the stairway that led
up to the Sanctuary of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem. This article examines this
similarity and related aspects.

A ruined stairway of evident antiquity appears in 19th century photographs and maps of the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif, located close to the southern end of the inner platform of the Dome of the Rock. This feature disappeared when the area was refashioned towards the end of the 19th century. Topographical, metrological and literary evidence suggests that this stairway was a relic of the Herodian Temple Complex.

Nestled on a wooded hillside above the cool waters of the Hermon Stream in the Golan Heights lie the ruins of Banias (ancient Caesarea Philippi). They include the remains of a rectangular building, partially hewn out of bedrock. Th e building is supported by a series of concrete walls decorated with opus reticulatum, a design with diamond or net-like patterns that was common in Roman architecture of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. This distinctive decoration caught the attention of Ehud Netzer, the late archaeologist and Herodian architectural expert,
who excavated at Banias for two short seasons in 1977 and 1978 to determine the structure’s function and builder.

Herodium, the palatial complex of Herod the Great is examined in a wider architectural context.  It is shown that Herodium belongs to a development of a class of country establishment of similar function, ranging over approximately eight centuries, from the Hellenistic to the Umayyad period.

In 1959, Antonio Frova, field director of the Italian archaeological expedition, started the excavation of the Roman Theater in Caesarea
Maritima. Sixty years later, the current paper aims to reconsider its data related to the Herodian building phase, on the base of some
unpublished archival documents and in loco architectural members as well. Thus, the Theater’s both architectural and decorative
features will be outlined, with a view to their connection with the contemporary Roman architecture

Religious passions and sensitivities over the Temple Mount inJ erusalem have largely inhibited archaeological investigations within the enclosure of the lfaram al-Shanj and especially of its cisterns and other subterranean structures (Gibson and Jacobson 1996). A good deal of what is known about these features derives from the exploratory work conducted between the years 1864 and 1876 by the teams of Royal Engineers who were charged with the task of surveying Jerusalem and later the whole of Palestine, mostly under the sponsorship of the Palestine Exploration Fund. These survey expeditions were headed, in turn, by Charles Wilson, Charles Warren and Claude Conder, officers who were highly energetic and resourceful. The information that they obtained is remarkable, when viewed against the difficult conditions in which they worked and the obstacles put in their way by the local authorities. Their endeavours were supplemented by the work of Conrad Schick, a German missionary and self-trained architect, who forged close links with the British survey teams and with the Palestine Exploration Fund in London. Schick spent much time exploring the Temple Mount in the 1870Swith the sanction of the Ottoman authorities, for whom he built fine wooden models of the lfaram and its mosques. Two of these models were displayed in the pavilion of the Ottoman Empire at the 1873 World Fair held in Vienna (Goren and Rubin 1996, 112-13). BARCLAY'S GATE One of the lesser structures of the lfaram al-Sharif that was investigated particularly by Wilson and then by Warren is Barclay's Gate and its associated passage. About 90 m. north of the southwest corner of the lfaram al-Sharif the Herodian drafted ashlar masonry in the western enclosure wall is interrupted by a patch of irregular fill topped by a massive lintel, which indicates the existence of a blocked monumental gate (see Figs. I and 2). The lintel itself is a drafted monolith and is integral with the ancient masonry of the western wall so that the gate must be contemporaneous with it and therefore of Herodian date. An American missionary and medical doctor, James Thomas Barclay, who was resident in Jerusalem in the 1850s, examined the gate and its in situ lintel and described his observations (Barclay 1858, 489-90). The gate was subsequently named after him.! Only the western portion of the exterior of the gateway and its lintel has been visible up to the present time. The total length of the lintel that was visible in the nineteenth century measured 20 ft. I in. (= 6. 12m.). However, the passage within is accessible and its northern edge registers with the northern jamb of the gateway as seen from outside the gate. Therefore, it has been possible to gauge the width of the gateway and lintel from measurements of the front of the gateway that has been exposed and the passage running behind it: however, there is less certainty about its height. In an excavation conducted in 1869, Warren identified the 'sill-course' of the gate but it was so badly broken that he was unable to determine whether the sill of the gate corresponded to the top or the bottom of that course (Warren 187 I, I 13-I 4). The dimensions of the entrance under the lintel were calculated to be 18 ft. 8 in. wide (= 5.69 m.) and 28 ft. 9} in. (= 8.77 m.) high, measured to the top of the 'sill-course', while the lintel has an estimated length of 24 ft. 8 in. (= 7.52 m.) and a measured height of6 ft. 10 in. (= 2.08 m.) (Wilson 1880, 17; Warren and Conder 1884, 189).

There are a number of key factors that account for the fascination for Herod the Great among scholars and the public at large. First, of course, there is his notoriety in Christian tradition for 'the Massacre of the Innocents' and pursuit of the infant Jesus, as described in Matthew 2. On the positive side is his remarkable success in crafting a kingdom that wielded considerable influence and prestige in the Roman Empire by deftly navigating the disparate power and interest groups affecting his realm, Roman, Hellenic and Jewish. Herod was also a prodigious builder: his splendid architectural monuments at Caesarea, Herodium, Masada, Jericho and elsewhere, even in their badly ruined state, still fill visitors with wonder. Our detailed knowledge of Herod is substantial, thanks to the copious historical information contained in the writings of the 1 st century CE historian, Josephus.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This monograph is accompanied by numerous well-chosen illustrations, including 96 plates of die charts and a comprehensive bibliography. It has been well edited and this reviewer has spotted few typographical errors. Unfortunately, the high price of this Brill publication is likely to deter many libraries and individual scholars from purchasing what is an important addition to the literature of the ancient coinage of the Land of Israel.

The outer shell of Upper Herodian conforms to a geometrical design - being a perfect circle with semicircular and circular towers placed at cardinal points. In this analysis of the plan of this complex, it is shown that its internal layout forms part of a unified scheme with the enveloping circular shell

In the second part of this study, the evidence from 19th century photographs, analysis of plans of the Temple Mount and archaeological remains are brought together in a synthesis which recovers the original layout of the Herodian Temple complex.

For those interested in biblical Jerusalem, identifying the exact spot where the Temple Sanctuary stood is a major desideratum. Many scholars have hinged their arguments on the Sakhra, the exposed rock outcrop enshrined in the Dome of the Rock, but that piece of evidence is inconclusive. It is suggested that a more fruitful approach is to to derive the precise location of the Sanctuary from the surviving outer walls of the ancient Temple enclosure, supplemented by other key remains that lie within the walled complex. It is demonstrated that this approach successfully unlocks the age-old mystery.

The reign of Herod, the Builder-King, is characterized by large-scale construction that radically changed the face of ancient Palestine. He initiated, planned, and built many structures, including those befitting the ceremonious lifestyle of his palaces as well as public edifices for the benefit of the urban inhabitants of his kingdom. Herod’s love of Graeco-Roman culture, together with his desire to incorporate his kingdom into the Roman Empire politically, socially, and culturally, led him to establish games and construct buildings for mass entertainment that would house the various types of competitions, races, performances, and shows for the public. By introducing such buildings and holding competitions within the confines of his kingdom, both in the cities and on the grounds of his palaces, Herod revolutionized the cultural leisure patterns in ancient Palestine for many generations to come.
A variety of competitions and performances were held for the first time in a festival Herod founded in Jerusalem in honor of the emperor Augustus in 28 BCE. Described in detail by Flavius Josephus, they were conducted in the theater and large amphitheater the king built in the city. Except for several stone seats belonging to a Herodian or Hadrianic theater that once stood in Jerusalem, neither a theater nor an amphitheater has yet been discovered in the city. Opinions vary as to where, if at all, they may have stood. The absence of archaeological evidence places doubt on the credibility of the literary testimony, leaving us in the dark as to whether these structures actually existed. The paper focuses on Flavius Josephus’s testimony and attempts to define the shape, nature, and character of the buildings Herod constructed in Jerusalem in light of additional evidence from Herodian Palestine and abroad. Based on an analysis of known Herodian buildings and a comparative reading of Josephus’s War and Antiquities, it  is argued that Herod’s theater and “amphitheater” in Jerusalem, like his other endeavors, were monumentally constructed out of stone, and not of wood, as suggested by some scholars.

Summary
The buildings erected by Herod the Great, king of Judaea, during the 1st century BCE are analysed from the aspect of the political intentions underlying them. They should display undoubtedly the representation of the reign. While Herod’s government was a Roman ‘client-kingdom’ legally, his internal politics followed the example of Hellenistic monarchs, neither of which was recognized by the Jews. From the diversity of peoples in the country, it can be inferred that the structures and intentions of the policy and the building policy respectively were manifold.
Accordingly, Herod had Augusteia, the visible manifestation of his acceptance of the Roman suzerainty, erected in non-Jewish areas only, where the inhabitants did not take any offence against figural depictions or the adoration of deities and rulers. The inspirations for Herod‘s buildings came from the Hellenistic-Roman sphere. Presumably the king got knowledge of them during his many journeys abroad and intentionally wanted to adapt them. These Hellenistic-Roman elements are obvious particularly in the newly erected harbour city of Caesarea, where Herod could plan unhindered from pre-existing structures or Jewish religious sensitivity. Extravagant and unique structures can be found in his palaces. The restrictions of Jewish iconoclasm were followed preponderantly to avoid additional rejection of the Jews. Even if the non-Jewish parts of his kingdom seem to be more convenient in terms of acceptance of his building policy Herod did not neglect the core area Judaea. On the contrary the capital of Jerusalem was adorned with splendid buildings such as the new Jewish Temple where Herod did follow the religious rules and manifest his reign only with the addition of a royal basilica. The structure of the Jewish temple as well as two other holy Jewish sites, the tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron and the cultic shrine of Mamre, shows the usage of a local form repertoire that was familiar and acceptable to the Jewish people.
For Herod the Great the realisation of prestigious building projects implied not only the representation of his power but also the consideration of the demands of the inhabitants of his realm. The king of Judaea strove to legitimise his position before both the Roman rulers and his subjects. While the non-Jewish people accepted his reign, the Jewish people did not approve his concept.

Zusammenfassung
Gegenstand des Buches ist die Untersuchung der von Herodes dem Großen, König von Judäa, im 1. Jh. v. u. Z. errichteten Bauten hinsichtlich der ihnen zu Grunde liegenden politischen Intentionen, da sie ohne Zweifel eine sichtbare und begreifbare Repräsentation seiner Herrschaft über Judäa darstellten. In seiner Regierungsform folgte Herodes den Prinzipien des römischen Klientelkönigtums, wobei er seine Innenpolitik nach dem Vorbild hellenistischer Monarchien gestaltete. Dies stieß jedoch auf den Widerstand der jüdischen Einwohner des Landes, die weder die römische Oberhoheit noch Herodes' Herrschaft anerkannten. Die inhomogene Bevölkerungsstruktur mit ihren unterschiedlichen Vorstellungen verlangte von der Politik und somit auch von der Baupolitik des Königs differenzierte Strukturen und Zielsetzungen.
Es zeigt sich, daß Herodes die zur Verdeutlichung seiner Treue gegenüber Rom erforderlichen Bauten, nämlich die Augusteia, nur in mehrheitlich nicht-jüdischen Gebieten errichtete, deren Einwohner im Gegensatz zu den Juden an der bildlichen Darstellung und der Verehrung anderer Götter und Menschen keinen Anstoß nahmen. Diese Tempel wie auch etliche seiner anderen Bauten folgten überwiegend hellenistisch-römischen Mustern. Vermutlich hatte Herodes auf seinen zahlreichen Reisen die entsprechenden Vorbilder kennen- und schätzen- gelernt und übernahm sowohl deren Form als auch ihre Funktion bei der Realisierung seines Bauprogrammes. Dies läßt sich vor allem bei der Neuanlage der Hafenstadt Caesarea beobachten. Für Herodes bot sich dort die Möglichkeit, in einem ihm aufgeschlossen gegenüberstehenden Umfeld eine Stadt nach seinen Vorstellungen zu konzipieren, ohne auf die religiösen Vorschriften der Juden Rücksicht nehmen zu müssen. Auch im Falle seiner Paläste folgte Herodes diesem Prinzip, indem er verschiedenste Stilelemente kombinierte, was zur Entstehung teilweise extravaganter und einzigartiger Bauwerke führte. Um die ablehnende Haltung der Juden gegen diese nicht-traditionellen Bauten nicht zu forcieren, befolgte er das Bilderverbot und verzichtete bei der Ausstattung weitgehend auf figürliche Darstellungen. Auch wenn die nicht-jüdischen Gebiete im Hinblick auf die Akzeptanz seiner Baupolitik geeigneter erschienen, vernachlässigte Herodes das Kernland Judäa nicht. Im Gegenteil läßt sich in der prunkvollen Ausgestaltung der Hauptstadt Jerusalem eine besondere Würdigung erkennen. Hierzu zählte auch der Neubau des jüdischen Tempels, bei dem Herodes die religiösen Bestimmungen respektierte und nur mit einer Stoa seine Stellung manifestierte. Sowohl bei dem Tempel als auch den Bauten an zwei weiteren heiligen Stätten des Judentums (Hebron und Mamre) fällt auf, daß sich der König hier einer lokalen Formensprache bediente, die den Juden geläufig war und von ihnen angenommen werden konnte. 
Somit spielte für den judäischen König neben der Realisierung repräsentativer und prestigebringender Bauprojekte eben auch die Berücksichtigung der unterschiedlichen Bedürfnisse der Bevölkerung eine entscheidende Rolle. Mit dem Instrument der Baupolitik legitimierte Herodes der Große seine Herrschaft nicht nur gegenüber der römischen Oberhoheit, sondern auch gegenüber seinen Untertanen. Von den Nicht-Juden wurde dieses Konzept angenommen, bei den Juden hingegen fand die Herrschaft des Herodes keine Billigung.