50 MORTEN HØRNING JENSEN described with adjectives such as: minor, moderate and unremarkable. He did not make fundamental changes in Galilee; rather he engaged in modest development of the region 24. An outline of Galilee’s political history until the First Revolt reveals a similar picture with no reported incidents in the sources. Agrippa I succeeded Antipas as the ruler of Galilee in 39 CE, albeit only for a short period of time until 44 CE (Ant. 18.252; 19.350-352; War 2.183, 219). During this time, no reported Galilean upheavals or incidents have come down to us, except for protests against Gaius’ attempt to erect his statue in the temple, which were brought against Petronius, the legate of Syria, who at one point resided in Tiberias (Ant. 18.269; War 2.193). The following period (44-66 C.E.) was one of direct Roman government 25, and, again, we are not informed of actual confrontations in Galilee except for the assault on Galilean pilgrims in Samaria (Ant. 20.118-136; War 2.232-235). When the revolt finally broke out, it comes as no surprise that Josephus spoke of it being orchestrated from Jerusalem and subsequently spreading to Galilee 26. To sum up, the Roman conquest of Judea in 63 BCE did bring turmoil to the entire region, including Galilee. It is, however, noteworthy that the reported unrest is confined to the transitional periods rather than being continuous. It seems especially evident that the period under Herod Antipas was relatively calm. 2. Settlement Patterns An area of inquiry that has been considerably advanced through recent decades of archaeological activity is that of settlement patterns. An increasing number of surveys performed by Israeli archaeologists, in particular, now provide us with a sketch of how settlement activity developed over time. 24 Cf. JENSEN, Herod Antipas, 135-162. 25 Agrippa II did gain some foothold in Galilee in this period and was granted the city of Tiberias during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE), cf. Ant. 20.159; War 2.252; Life 37–38. For more on the history of Tiberias, cf. JEN- SEN, Herod Antipas, 135-138. 26 Cf. the discussion of the events in FREYNE, Galilee, 78-91. According to M. Goodman, the increased tension in Judea and Jerusalem was due to socio-economic inequality between rich and poor prompted by the elite’s con- trol of the temple institution, cf. M. GOODMAN, “The First Jewish Revolt: So- cial Conflict and the Problem of Debt”, JJS 33 (1982) 417-427.