22 Constructing the Past in the Cities of Byzantine Palestine KENNETH G. HOLUM title is multivocal, to use a choice post-modernist term, and a bit \ { ironic. Itis occasioned by the ASOR centennial, an opportunity for contemplating how group memory operates Ic is also occasioned, “obviously, by the alleged “surn-of-the-millennium” not long ago, which was. ‘accompanied, through many months, by much public tat about how we as ‘nation, and even as a community of nations, look at and use the past. Iam inspired also, for example, by Peter Novick’ recent book, The Holocaust in American Le, hich explores how the American Jewish community has shaped ‘memory of tertible events during World War II for its own use, of, as histo- rans putit, in order “to ereate a usable past.” The facts, a8 Itell my students, that all of us humans live in memory, and all of us, not just the historians and archaeologists, arc “managers of memory” who appropriate and shape the past for our own purposes. Despite Henry Ford, who declared that “all his- tory is bunk,” in one way of another the human past is authoritative and we have no choice but to live with it. One aspect of modernity, though, is that we feel we have the choice to embrace the past asin this centennial celebration, ‘orto reject it, by preferring, in architectural terms, the Bawhaus to Neo-Gotic, for example, or by expecting design innovations for every new model year ‘when we purchase a cat “Most of us would agree, I believe, that archacologists and historians are not ordinary “managers of memory,” but specialists who use sophisticated techniques—recovery of cultural remains in stratigraphic context, text-ritical studies of ancient documents—to understand what actually happened long, ‘ago or in recent times. This is the ASOR tradition, cultivated now for one hundred yeats, and in the broadest sense it links us with critical scholars lke Novick. This professional, scholasy enterprise seems to me to be entirely modern, indeed among the defining aspects of “modernity,” and it appears ss32 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDI ast to have been fucled in part by the challenge of preventing the past from exerting a tyranny over us, Knowing the “facts,” or at least how to master the “truth,” we can better resist those who would misinterpret what has hap- pened in order to promote a selfish, partisan, or dehumaniving agenda, ‘Thacis not, however, how the ancients approached the past, at least not the ones I have in mind. The ancient people whose views are central here were the urban builders in cities of the Middle Bast, especially in what are ‘now Israel and Jordan, berween roughly 300 and 640 c.p, in the period that ‘we tend to call “Byzantine.” Iam thinking of familiar sites like Jerusalem, ‘Sepphoris, Beth Shean/Scythopolis, and Caesatea in Istael, and in Jordan places like Jerash and Petra. As we know, all of these Classical urban sites, especially the ones in Isracl, witnessed a burst of archaeological activity in the 1980s and 1990s. In many cases, including Caeseren, large-scale excavations are now in a pause, and the archacologists are tying to make something of the huge body of new evidence for ancient usbatisi, especially for the Byz- antine cities, that has been assembled. Itseems tome that among those labor- ing to interpret this evidence confusion reigns atthe highest level of general- zation, and this confusion will hinder the crtial scholar’ ability to master the ‘ruth about these ancient cities ‘The confusion is evident party in competing schools of interpretation. Everyone now agrees that the Classical cities Tam discussing did not end in the third or fourth century but reached their wassimain extent, population, and prosperity in the sixth (Walmsley 1996). Some scholaes, however, following ‘Alexander Kazhdan and Anthony Cutler (1982), argue for general continuity inall aspects of urban culture down to the seventh century, then a suspension before a different kind of urbanism, medieval Byzantine or Islamic, emenged in the ninth and tenth centuries. Others, in the “polo madina” school, inspired by Hugh Kennedy (1985), perceive gradual but inexorable change from the third through sixth centuries that yielded the Islamic towns of the Middle East without a noticeable uprure, ‘There is also a troubling level of disagreement about mere terminology. Some, including most archaeologists excavating in the region, call the fourth through seventh centuries the “Byzantine” period, so “early,” “middle” “late,” and even “latest” Byzantine all occurred before tke Muslim conquests of the 630s, This must cause amusement among genuine Byzantinists, whose pet spective is broader than just the Near East, and who think that the civilization they study lasted until 1453 and even longer. Otherarchaeologists of the Near East refine the same basic approach. Yoram Tsafftr and Gideon Foerster, fot example, excavators of Beth Shean, are willing to admit “Roman” aspects of city planning and construction through the fourth centary, but discern clear “Byzantine” in the fifth and sixth (Isaftir and Foerster 1997: 85, 0.1). In his, ‘magisterial study of ceramic tableware, however, John Hayes takes “LateCIES OF BYZANTINE PALESTINE a0 Roman” Fine Ware through the entire period and beyond (1972). ‘This is hopelessly confusing to students! In church architecture we follow Richard Krautheimer (1986) in labeling the fourth century through the sixth as “Early Christian.” My own preference for the fourth century to the Muslim conquest is “Late Antique,” and there: fore I find Peter Brown's Delphic pronouncement that “Late Antiquity is lvays later than we think” applicable not just to religious language but equally to the vocabulary of urban architecture. As Brown explained, “Late Antiquity ‘can best be seen as a e-orchestration of components that had already existed for centuries in the Mediterranean world” (1978: 8). In Refining the Post (Classical Cit, a book we should all take to heart, Annabel Wharton puts for- ‘waed still another proposal, that we call the age in question “post Classical” swith explicit reference to our own post-Modern age (1995: xi. "To many of us this endless debate among specialists about terminology ‘no doubt appeats trivial, but, as Annabel Wharton demonstrates, these mere labels can also mask interpretive postures that make it difficult to approach the ancient evidence with a clear mind, My main point is that we can resolve the confusions if we remember one fact sbout ancient urban builders, a fact that is almost too big to be seen. It is that for those who constructed ancient cities, the past was absolutely authoritative. That we modems have the free- dom consciously to reject the past is, again, an aspect of modernity: When architects and masons undertook ew building in Beth Shean, Caesarea, of Jerusalem, between the fourth century and the sixth, they thought they were literally constructing a Classical city. They selected building types, cut the stones, fitted them together, arranged rooms, doorways, colonnades, and other build- ing elements, decorated floors with figural mosaics and walls with paintings, and located the new building in relasion to existing buildings on the urban plan in conscious and purposeful emulation of their predecessors all the way. back to the founding of the city. ‘The archaeological evidence is plentiful, especially in the newer excava- tions, and almost too obvious to be seen. Iwill give just a few examples. In cities like Caesarea, Sepphoris, or Jerash, where an orthogonal grid plan was inherited from the first and second centuries, the traditional grid remained authoritative until the end of antiquity (Ags. 22.1 and 22.2). In Jerusalem, the so-called “Cardo” is actually a sixth-century extension southward, or a sixth- century rebuilding, of an eatlier colonnaded street that created a processional route to the Nea Chutch, the “New” church of the Mother of God (Avigad 1983: 211-29; Tsafcit 2000; 154-62). As we all know, this type of street colonnade dates back to the stoas ofthe Hellenistic age and was ubiquitous in Classical Mediterranean cities, An early fifth-century example from Beth Shean is called, in an inscription, the “toa” (Isafcir and Foerster 1997: 113-14), re ‘minding us of famous antecedents lke the second-century 8... Stoa of Attalos386 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST cee eee HERODIAN CAESAREA (up to 70 C.E.) Fig. 204 Caesures, Isac: plan of the Herodian/Eaely Foman city, Drawing by Anoa Tait, Caesarea Graphics Archive in Athens, rebuile exquisitely with Rockefeller funding in the 1950s in part on the grounds that it belonged to the “most characteristic type of ancient civic architecture” (Thompson and Wycherley 1972: 222, ef, 103-7). Among the other urban buildings that populated the city plans of Classical cities were, of ‘course, the public baths. At Beth Shean, the new excavations yielded the so- called Western Bath, a spacious and elegant facility, which was constructed in22 CITES OF BYZANTINE PALESTINE 338 Fig, 22.2 Cacsuen, tel: pls uf che Lae Antige (‘yanalae" ey. aenving by Anon amir, Caesarea Graphics Archive stages beginning about 400 (Bar-Nathan and Mazor 1993: 38-41; Mazor and Bar-Nathan 1994; 124-29; Tsaftir and Foerster 1997: 113, 131). At Caesatea wwe are short of public baths, no doube because we have nat yet excavated where they stood, but aqueducts proliferate, the main fonction of which was to supply the baths with water, We know that eapacious channel A of the High Level Aqueduct functioned to the end of the ancient city, as did new channel C, laid above defunct channel B. Dating pethaps to the sixth century, channel C used the same hydraulic technology as channels A of the first385 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AST ‘century and B of the second (Olami and Peleg 1977). In domestic architec- ture, builders were still caled upon to construct elaborate townhouses or ‘mansions, like one on the Mediterranean shore a: Caesarea equipped with an «unusually elaborate domestic bath (fig. 22.2) Indeed, the excavacors first iden- tified this building, uncovered 1992-1994, as a public bath (Porath 1998: 42— 43, cf however, Patrich, etal. 1999: 106), but the bathing facilities occupied aly its southwest quarter, while close by on the north was a splendid dining. room of the traditional sibadiior type, surviving only in the basement or foundation level. Such rooms characterized aristocratic mansions, not public baths (Bek 1983; Ellis 1987). An apse on the diring room's west accommo- dated the semicircular reclining couch where the master of the house entet- tained his aristocratic guests in appropriate splencor. It appeats that company of lesser rank was restricted by marble screens to. courtyard just to the east, paved in marble and surrounded by monolithic marble columns, where they could view the feasting through two taller columns that likely supported an arch framing the diners beyond, Using traditional forms and luxury materials, the architects of this mansion had created a commanding setting for the display of social distinction. The mansion, in use ‘tom the fourth through the sixth centuries, thus indicates that the urban aristocracy that had always pro ‘moted and dominated the Classical city still flourished and preserved its an- cient lifestyle (Holum 1996), ‘The point is not to deny that change was ccntinuous, of that the sixth- ‘century cites resembled in every significant indicator their predecessors of the second or third In cases where change occurred, it was often unconscious and gradual, not a deliberate choice of the contractor or builder. For ex- ample, in sixth-century Beth Shean, urban builders were laying down street pavements of the traditional type, of hard basal blocks quarried locally, with fresh water pipes and drains beneath them (Tsaftir and Foerster 1997: 105— ©}. The same happened in Caesarea, but there the majority of the latest, sith- century street pavements were ofthe relatively frizble sandstone ealled kunar, quarried in the immediate vicinity, while there ate hints in the evidence that carlier stret builders, in the second and third centuries, had normally gone to the greater expense of bringing in harder, more curable limestones from the ‘more distant Mt. Carmel quarries (Wierken and Holum 1981: 29-41; Patrich, et al, 1999: 74). In any case, none of Caesarea’s newly exposed late streets, ‘whether limestone or kurkar, display wheel ruts (Big, 22.3, ef. fig, 22.4 from Pompeii), in contrast, for example, with the rutted second- ot third-century pavements recently discovered at Sepphoris (Netzer and Weiss 1993: 190, 1994: 40-42). The reason, I suspect, is the camel, and the camel’ relatively soft feet. As Richard Bulliet demonstrated (1975), camel drivers gradually drove wagon drivers out of business in the Late Roman Middle East, and henceforth iron-tired wagons passed infrequently along the paved streets of22, CITES OF BYZANTINE PALESTINE sr Fig. 223 Cacsten, Ire: dew ‘manus S2 looking east. Combined Cacsatea Expeditions phow, cove tesyof Joseph Patch Fig, 24 Pompei ah cy sect with whe! sand eeppigstones Phow by K; Hokum,8 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST these cities, Instead, camels, and the ubiquitous donkey, carried notonly grain, wine, and oil from the countryside to feed and illuminate the city but also ‘wood to roof its buildings, wood and charcoal to heat them, and even the dressed stones used in theie foundations and walls, which therefore tencled to become smaller donkey- or eamel-size stones rather than the larger wagon- size ones. Hence, builders did change their practice in response to evolving, ‘market pressures, but this was not a self-conscious departure from authorita- tive ancient traditions in street construction, ‘Other changes in the urban fabric appear to us from our long perspec- tive of 1500 years to break new ground, but in fact most of what the archae~ ologists have found betrays a strong preference for the ancient and tradi tional. For example, in the fifth-sixth-century “Nile Festival Mosaic” recently discovered at Sepphotis, both patron and artist no doubt intended the colos- sal figures of the River Nile and of Aegyptus not as gods but as personifica- tions, in tane with the prevalent monotheism of the age, but both are satisfy ing examples of ancient figural art, and the pavement itself displays Nilotic motifs, wild animals, and scenes of hunting that had been the stock-in-tende of mosaic workshops for centuries (Netzer and Weiss 1993: 191-93, 1994: 47-51, 1995: 167-68). In effect, the artists of this mosaic were constructing the past. At Caesarea, inthe sixth-century imperial revenue office (fig. 22.2), Greck mosaic inscription set in the oor in a circular frame quotes St. Paul's cepistle to the Romans (Rom 13:3) to encourage obedience to the tax-man's demands: “If you wish not to fear the government, do good fe. pay your taxes] and you will receive praise from it” (Holum 1995; Lehmann and Holum. 2000, nos. 88-89). By the sixth century no one would have considered this ‘new or innovative, for the words of St, Paul were likewise in tune with the age. Indeed, by this time a Christian rhetoric of power had emerged that had not been part of the second-century urban scene, and henee from our long perspective appears to be new. On the other hand, the inscription itself, a Greek text set in a medallion, was a medium of publie or private expression that had been traditional for centuries at Caesares Ubiquitous in cities across the Roman Empite in the second and thied. centuries were theaters, amphitheaters, stadia, andin some places the circus or hippodrome. In face facility of this type virally defined a city, elevating it above the level of mere village, because only in such a face-to-face setting did 1 large body of citizens become aware of theit solidarity as a community (Roueché 1993). Hence, despite the general hostilty of the Christian church, these facilities all survived well into the period under review. At Caesarea, for example, the hippodrome (fig. 22.2) lasted until the later sixth century, t0 judge from John Humphrey's excavation, but we hear nothing of horse races ‘within it after $29 (Humphrey 1975). Their apparent demise before the end of the ancient city likely had more to do with impoverishment than with22 CITIES OF BYZANTINE PALESTINE 359 Christian objections, since the hippodrome stil flourished for a long time in Constantinople, ‘The theaters are more problematic, mainly because archaeologists have ppd litte attention to the question of when they passed out of use, We learn from texts that theatrical performances continued into the sixth century al- ‘though Christian writers condemned immoral dance performances and mimes ‘that displayed pagan myths with gods and goddesses (eg, Moss 1935; Tsar and Foerster 1997: 132). Caesarea’s first and second-century theater, repaired and modified in the fourth and fifth centuries and thus still in use, had been ‘made into a fortress by the early seventh (fig, 22.2; Frova, et al. 1966: 159-6, 184), and at Beth Shean there is likewise evidence for repairs and restoration of the theater in the fifth and sixth centuries (Mazor and Bat Nathan 1994: 121-23; Tsaftir and Foerster 1997: 132). Those who conducted such repairs certainly thought themselves to be constructing the classical city, The amphi- theaters likewise lasted surprisingly long, if we consider the enthusiastic at- tacks of churchmen, who, according to Wiedemann, concerned themselves {ar less with repellent cruelty to the condemned criminals who were executed, and to the wild animals that were hunted and slaughtered, than with the moral consequences of bloody and sensuous spectacles for Christians in the audi- cence (Wiedemann 1992: 128-64). ‘At Caesarea one of two known amphithe- atets, cither the long: known one identified in a field northeast of the city by Avraham Reifenberg (1951: 24-26, pl. x), or the one excavated in the 1990s by Yosef Porath along the shore (fig. 22.1; Porath 1995, 1998: 39-41), was the scene of executions of Christians witnessed by Eusebius during the Great Persecution in the first decade of the fourth century. Surprisingly, the Beth Shean amphitheater, excavated by Tsafiir and Foerster, was not converted to its new use from an earlier hippodrome until lace in the Fourth century, and it presumably hosted beast fights if not executions during the fifth (Vsafrie and Foerster 1997: 133-35). So much for the established theory that Christian ing the Empire meant the swift demise of the amphitheaters! Even so, con- tractors and builders eventually stopped constructing or maintaining these high-profile freilsies ypieal af the traditional city, and pact of the reason lay, in opposition from the Christian chusch, ‘Was Christianity itself a new factor? Did Christianizing the ancient cities of Jordan and Israel (and of other parts of the Roman Empire) introduce something fundamentally new on the urban scene, that would have caused ‘these ancient people, builders of cities, 10 experience a decisive break with the Classical past? No doubt many pagans thought so, and indeed to them ie was in part Chistianity’s apparent newness that was offensive (Nock 1933: 160- 63, ef. 212-53). On the Christian side as well, Busebius of Caesarea, in his Lie of Constantine (ch. 33), indeed spoke of a “New Jerusalem” that Emperor Constantine ordered local atchiteets and masons 10 construct “over against300 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST the one so celebrated of old” Fusebius had in mind, of course, at an actual new city, ora city of new type that displayed innovative urban architecture, bot juse a new religious monument, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre built 326-336 on a ste that dominated the Jewish Temple Mount let desolate wo centuries before. The chutch that Eusebius describes in the same passage (chs. 31-39) was, of cours, a basilica, and the arcitests and builders drew every clement of its design and construction from the ancient civil basilica (Krautheimer 1967). Even s0, Christian churches where pagaa temples had stood before were a clear beeak with the past, ct least from our own long perspective I is worth considering, however, that for contemporary Christians, the Chuistanizing of Jerusalem, Constantine’ embrace of the Christian God, and the preceding Great Persecation at Caesarea and elsewhere, were only the latest episodes in a very old contfct benween good and evil. As Peter Brown observed, it was already when Cheist was raised on the ceoss that “heaven and earth ang with the crash of falling temples," while the Christian "Empire of the fourth century was just “a las, besle moppping-up operation” (1995: 4-5). Oxiginatingin ancient Israel and reshaped by the Christian move ‘ment, this conflict, sine the frstand second centuries until its final stages, had played itself out mainly inthe cites of the Roman Empire, Cristian writes, bishops and holy men exhorting the faithful against the gods and goddesses oon the one hand, the Jews on the other, and aginst the delights of baths, Jew theatrical performances and beast fights, ac been essential tothe urban scene already in the second and third centuss, wherever there were Chris- tians. During the fourth through ealy fh censuses the same confit within the cites turned deisivelyin the Christians’ favor. In the Near Eas, Jerusalem, refounded in the seconel century as Aclia Capito‘na, was the fist city to be “refigured,” and it became paradigmatic for the others. Beginning in 326, Acla’s Christians, formerly a marginal group tha: had gathered in suburban shrines oa Mt, Zion, the Me. of Olives or nearby at Bethlehem, fixed ther- selves in the very heart ofthe city, on the north flank of Actin’ marketplace ot forum. Led by their bishop, and with imperial backing, hey buileheie church on the north side of the forum, where one of Aefi’s main temples had earlier stood—and in the process of destroying the temple and digging out its foun dations, they exposed an empty tomb, accepted atonce asthe Holy Sepuleher (Wharton 1995: 85-92) Elsewhere, a in Jerash, Christians left the temple’ vacant hulk and built their main church “over against” it in order to dramatize the vietory ofthe church, In my opinion, Wharton gets it exactly sight. While “sefigusing” che Classical city in che fourth through sixth centuries, these ancient urbanists by fo means pled it. As the architects and masons arranged doorways and colonnades and lad the stones in place, they adopted the traditional forms of22 CITIES OF BYZANTINE PALESTINE xa the ancient basilica, Similarly, on Caesares’s Temple Platform, once ste of the ‘smiain pagan temple, builders later @bout 500) erected an octagonal church crived, it is thought, from ancient hero monuments and decorated with traditional columnar architecture (figs. 22.1 and 22.2; Holum 1999). In these religious buildings, as in other monuments of urban architecture, traditional group memory remained authoritative, and the traditional Classical city dis- played its ancient vitality. "These facts, sometimes too big and too obvious to be seen, will enable us to study in perspective the flood of new evidence from Classical urban sites, in Istacl and Jordan, Let me state my own case plainly. In my mind, “Byzan- tine,” even “Early Byzantine,” isan inappropriate term for the fourth through sixth centuries in the Middle East, for this culture stil lacked che centality of| ‘Constantinople with its hinterland from Anatolia to the Balkans that emerged after the loss of Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and the definitive separation of the West. During these centuries, in the eastern provinces, the old Roman cities, and with them the city-oriented culture of antiquity, were stil very much alive. “Late Antique,” it seems to me, deseribes the situation perfectly, for this ‘was the final age before the Muslim conquest of the seventh century that decisively brought in a new world. Further, “Late Antique” has the advantage of corresponding with German Sjpitentite and French BarEmpire, and of resolving the confusions that accompany idiosyncratic use of the word “Byz- antine” in the archaeology of the Near Bast, My own preference, however, is ‘unimportant, If modetn observers keep in mind the fundamental operations of group memory, and that in the fourth through seventh centuries urban builders thought themselves bound by the inescapable authority of the past, am confident that jie debates about terminology will soon abate, REFERENCES Avigad,N 1983 DixseringJeralo, Nashville: Thornas Nelson. Bat Nathan, R. and Mazor,G. 1993 City Center (South) and Tel tabba Area: Excavations ofthe Antiquities “Authority Expedition, Esiabutons aud Sungei ls! U1: 33-8 Bek, 1983 Questnmes Comiahs: The Idea of the Tricinium and the Staging of CConvivial Ceremony from Rome to Byzantium. Anata Ramona Institut Danie 12: 81-107. Brown,P.R.L 1978 The Making of Late Amtigniy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 1995 Anthrty and the Sacred: Arpt of the Christianization oft Roman Worl (Cambridge: Cambridge Universisa. AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST Billet, RW 1973. The Caml andthe Wheel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Elis,S.P. 1987 Power, Architecture, and Decor: How the Late Roman Ariseserat Appeared to His Guests, Pp. 117-34 in Reman Actin Pritate Sphere: New Pespcvs ‘the Arte ad Des ofthe Domus, Vi, and Ina ed. B.K. Gazda and A.E, Hacc. Ana Arbor: University of Michigan, Frova, Acta 1966 Sean Cesaree Maniting, Rome: Bretschneiler Hayes, J.W. 1972 Late Roman Peter. Lonclon: British Schoolat Rome, Holum, K. G. 1995. Inscriptions from the Imperial Revenue Office of Byzantine Caesarea Palaestinae. Pp. 333-45 in The Raman and Byqontine Near Fast: Some Recor Ancbavolegia! Resta ed. J. Humphrey, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, no. 1 Ana Atbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. 1996 ‘TheSuvival ofthe Boaleusic Cass at Caesarea in Late Antiquity. Pp. 615-27 in Cactrsa Marta: A Retopetve Afr Tn Milena es. A Raban and K, - Hokum. Leiden: Bri 1999 "The Temple Platform: Progress Report on the Excavations. Pp. 1234 in Cactrsa Papert 2: Heros Temple the Prsincal Govrnr’s Pracoriam, A Gold Goin Hoard end Other Stuies, eds. K. G. Hllum, A. Raban, and J. Patich Jousnal of Roman Atchteology, Supplementary Series, no. 35, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Humpheey J. H. 1975 A Summary of the 1974 Excavations in the Caesarea Hippodrome. Bullsin ofthe American Scbsls of Oriental Research 218: 1-24 Kazhdan, A. and Cutler, A. 1982" Continuity and Discontinuity in Byzantine History. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 429-78 Kennedy H. 1985." From Polis to Madina: Usban Change in Late Antique and Barly Islamic Syria. Past nd Pret 106: 3-27 Keauthoimer,R. 1967 ‘The Constantinian Basilica. Dumbarton Outs Papers 21: 116-40. 1986 Early Chico and Byte Arca. 4 2d, rv. by R. Krautheimer and S.Caie, New Haven: Yale Universi. Lehmann, C. M. and Holum, K. G. 2008” The Grek and Lat Insertions of Casas Martina The Joint Expedition to (Caesarea Mattie: Excavation Reports, 10.5. Boston: American Schools ‘of Oriental Research, Mazor, G,and Bar Nathan, R. 1994 Sesthopolis — Capital of Palaestina Secunda, Qadwonit 107-108: 117-37 Hebrew), Moss, C. 1935 Jacob of Serug’s Homilies on the Spectacles of the Theatre, Le Muuton 35: 7-112,22, CITIES OF BYZANTINE PALESTINE x3 Netzer, Band Weiss, Z. 1993 Sepphosis. lr Fplration Journ 43: 190-96, 1994 Zip Jerosalens Irae! Exploration Society 1995 New Evidence for Late-Roman and Byzantine Sepphoris. Pp. 164-76 in “The Reman and Byte Near Bast Some Recent Arcavoloical Resear ed} Humphrey. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Sesies,no. 1 Ann Arbor: Jousnal of Roman Archaeology. Nock,A.D. 1983 Comersion: The Old andthe New in Religion from Alexonder the Great _Argustine of Hipp, Ontond: Oxford University. (Olami, Y.and Peleg, ¥ 1977 ‘The WaterSupply System of Caesarea Maritim, Ine Epona Journal2? 127-37, Passich, Y etal 1999) "The Warehouse Complex ane Governos Palace (areas KK, CC,and NN, May 1993-Decernber 1995) Pp. 70-107 in Caesarea Paper 2: Heras Temp, ‘he Preval Govemors Prarie, A Gold Cain Hoard, and Other Studs ed K.G, Hokum, A. Raban, a J. Patrich. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, no, 35. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology Porath,¥, 1995 Herod's “Amphitheatee” at Caesarea: A Mulipurpose Botertinment Building, Pp. 15-27 in Tle Roman and Byzantine Near Eat Some Rest “Arhewleiea! Reta ed, J, Bumpheey. Journal of Roman Archaeology, ‘Supplementary Series, no. 4, Ann Atbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. 1998 Expedition of the Antiquities Authority, Eszanatons aad Surge Taral V7: 39-49, Reifeaberg, A. 1951 Caesarea: A Studyin the Decline ofa Town, lal Exploration formal: 20— 2 RowechéC. 1993 Performers and Partisans at Apbradsioe in the Rowan and Late Roma Paris Jousnal of Roman Seadies Monographs, no, 6. London: Society forthe Promotion of Roman Studies. ‘Thompson, H.A. and Wycherey, RE. 1972 "The Athenian Agora, Vol He The Aone of Athen: The Hist, Shate and Uses ofan Ancient City Center Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens Tear Y. 2088) Procopius and the Nea Church in Jerusalem. Antigat Tani 8149-64 “Tsai, Y. and Foerster, 1997 Uzhtnism ae Seythopolis-Bet Shean in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries, amisrtow Oaks Papers 51: 85-146. ‘Walmsley, A, 1996 Byzantine Palestine and Arabia: Usha Prosperity in Late Antiquity. Pp04 AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE BAST 226-58 in Town in Transon: Urban Exon in Late Antiquity and te Early “Midie eu, eds. N. Christe and S."T. Loschy. Aldershot and Brookfield Scholar's Pressand Ashgate, Wharton, AJ. 1995." Refiurng she Po Clase! City: Dara Earn, Josh, Jercalon and Ravenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Wiedemann, T. 1992 Emperorrand Gladiator. London: Routledgs, Wiemken, R. C.and Holum, K. G. 1981" "TheJoine Expedition to Caesarea Masitims Eighth Season, 1979. Ballin of ‘the American Sebel of Oretal Resear 244: 27-52,