Morten Hørning Jensen, «Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes: An Investigation of the Socio-Economic Dynamics and Developments in Roman Galilee», Vol. 93 (2012) 43-67
Much research on the socio-economic conditions of Galilee in the Herodian period has argued for a rapid economic deterioration amongst the rural population. This is said to have resulted in a deadly spiral of violence prompting popular protest movements of which Jesus of Nazareth became the most renowned. Other investigations, however, paint a much more lenient picture of Galilee being under only a moderate development. This article outlines the problem at hand in the research, suggests a methodology for further development and applies this to new archaeological material emerging from excavations in Galilee and the textual material available.
54 MORTEN HØRNING JENSEN
located on hill-tops near valleys suitable for large scale cultivation†35.
In the early Roman period, however, a dramatic change took place with
a “massive wave of settlement construction†now markedly unfortified
and placed at “locations with no strategic value†36. The rise in density
is close to a hundred percent. In this respect, Leibner’s survey mirrors
Frankel’s study of Upper Galilee and some of the ASI-surveys, in which
the most significant growth was during the Roman period. In the mid-
Roman period, however, Leibner encountered a slight fall in the number
of settlement sites, followed by a more drastic decline from the late
Roman period and onwards. In this respect, Leibner’s study differs from
some of the others.
This new study is extremely important for our understanding of first-
century Galilee. It is actually the first of its kind to offer such a thorough
and detailed analysis, using Adan-Bayewitz’s fine-masked pottery
classification. The basic thrust regarding the early Roman period is
clear: an intensive effort was made to bring the rural area under the
plow. The growth in this period therefore took place not only in the
urban centers of Sepphoris and Tiberias, known from other excavations,
but also in the rural parts of the region, as political circumstances
allowed unfortified settlements on less-desirable tracts of land 37.
100- 50- 100- 150- 200- 250-
50-1 1-50
50 100 150 200 250 300
Hel
BCE CE
BCE CE CE CE CE CE
Leibner,
26 22 37 39 39 38 32
40 40
sites
Estimated
225- 316- 559- 579- 544- 652- 649- 508-
656-
settled area
492 569 985 1015 962 982 1099 882
1119
(dunams)
Chart 5
35
U. LEIBNER, “Settlement and Demography in Late Roman and Byzantine
Eastern Galileeâ€, Settlements and Demography in the Near East in Late An-
tiquity (eds. A.S. LEWIN – P. PELLEGRINI) (Rome 2006) 114. Cf. LEIBNER, Settle-
ment, 316, 319.
36
LEIBNER, “Settlement and Demographyâ€, 115. Cf. LEIBNER, Settlement, 333.
37
Cf. also the survey by K. R. DARK, “Roman-Period and Byzantine
Landscapes Between Sepphoris and Nazarethâ€, PEQ 140 (2008) 95.
FOLLOW US