The Hasmonean Kings: Jewish or Hellenistic?

045

The priestly and, later, kingly dynasty of Hasmoneans dominated Judea for most of the Late Hellenistic period. Descendants and heirs of the Maccabees (leaders of the Jewish rebellion that overthrew their Seleucid overlords), the Hasmoneans ruled in Judea between 152 and 37 B.C.E. At the beginning, they were high priests as well as secular rulers, but starting with Judas Aristobulus and Alexander Jannaeus (ruled 103–76 B.C.E.), they also held the title of king. During that latter period, the Hasmoneans conquered territories in Samaria, the Galilee, and Transjordan; fought against the Seleucids, the Nabateans, and Hellenistic cities; and maintained contacts with the Ptolemies and the Romans.

Much less, however, is known about the internal affairs of the Hasmonean government and even less about their identity as leaders and rulers. What kind of sovereigns were they? And how did they perceive their role as rulers of an independent Jewish state?

In 1 Maccabees, the last ruler of the Maccabee family and the founder of the Hasmonean dynasty, Simon Maccabeus, is characterized as pious with regard to the Torah and the Jerusalem Temple. However, the Jewish historian Josephus portrayed the Hasmoneans as Hellenistic rulers who hired Greek mercenaries, had mistresses, and enjoyed banquets.

So were the Hasmoneans devoted Jews or Hellenized rulers? Some clues to this question emerge from a comparison of the architecture, water installations, and vessels in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho with those in other Hellenistic palaces and later palaces built by King Herod the Great. The late Ehud Netzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavated four different Hasmonean palaces—the Buried Palace, the Fortified Palace, and the Twin Palaces—in Tulul Abu al-‘Alayiq west of ancient Jericho046 and north of Wadi Qelt.^a His archaeological reports make it possible to understand not merely how the Hasmoneans lived, but also how they behaved as monarchs: how they chose to display their authority, wealth, power, and prestige.¹

The Buried Palace was much larger than the other palaces at the site. It consisted of a central courtyard as large as both mansions of the Twin Palaces combined. This is surprising since the Buried Palace is the earliest among the four and was purposely demolished when the Fortified Palace was constructed upon it. The large measurements of the Buried Palace are striking since it was built by John Hyrcanus (r. 134–104 B.C.E.)—who did not take the title of “king” but only that of ruler and high priest (1 Maccabees 16:24; Antiquities 13.230, 259)—and rulers typically demolished palaces to make room for larger palaces, not smaller ones.

The later and more modest Fortified Palace was built by Alexander Jannaeus, who took the title of “king.” Even smaller still, the Twin Palaces were built by his wife, Queen Salome Alexandra (76–67 B.C.E.), for her two rival sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. So there appears to be an inverse correlation over time between royal status—specifically the adoption of the title of “king”—and the external display of power and luxury. This is perhaps because the Hasmoneans believed that one way to assume the title of “king” (despite not being of the tribe of Judah, that is, from the Davidic dynasty) was to appear less opulent to their subjects than their predecessors, who did not adopt the title.

All four palaces had Greco-Roman wall paintings (stucco and frescoes), but they lacked many of the externally visible elements of Hellenistic monumental architecture: a peristyle court, large ceremonial halls,048 and elaborate decorations that appear in many Hellenistic palaces as well as in later Herodian palaces.

The comparison of the total size of these Hasmonean palaces and their public spaces with later Herodian palaces reveals that the Hasmonean palaces were smaller. Their halls, courts, and triclinia (dining rooms) were also much smaller.

There was, however, one exception: In contrast to the plain character of their architecture and the small public courts for gatherings, the Hasmonean complex in Jericho included several swimming pools, comparable to those of the wealthy Hellenistic dynasties of Macedonians, Seleucids, and Ptolemies or the later pools of Herod the Great in Jericho, Herodium, and Caesarea Maritima. The Hasmonean palace complex in Jericho included 10 pools—surrounded by a garden with colonnades and walls. In later phases, storerooms were added in the Western Garden (west of the pools) and a triclinium. The pools and the pavilion were probably used for games and recreation, and the pavilion may have served as a triclinium or reception hall. North of the pools was a large garden measuring 200 by 233 feet, surrounded by colonnades.

Thus, strikingly, the Hasmoneans seem to have preferred relatively simple and small buildings, while investing great effort in building numerous swimming pools and large decorated gardens. They appear to have distinguished between their pools and gardens, and their private domestic domains. For the Hasmoneans, their pools represented power or success in the Hellenistic world.² And yet, in contrast to many Hellenistic palaces and Pompeian villas, these Hasmonean pools were not directly connected to the Hasmonean palaces themselves. It seems that the Hasmonean rulers were not interested in making the pools integral parts of their own domestic units; they saw them instead as “public” and “open” facilities. That is, perhaps the Hasmoneans conceptualized their pools not as the king’s personal luxurious property, but as “national” property—a gift to the public. As they were located in the open area049 outside the palaces, they represented the success of the entire kingdom.

Netzer found four Greek bathhouses with bathtubs and heating installations throughout the Hasmonean complex, including in the Buried Palace and in both mansions of the Twin Palaces. These were private heated baths for the inhabitants of the palaces. Another bath was found outside of the palace buildings, in the Western Garden, with an adjacent mosaic. Such terracotta bathtubs were prevalent in the Hellenistic world as well as in Italian villas. The Hasmonean private bathtubs and heating installations attest to the adoption of the Hellenistic culture of bathing for pleasure, relaxation, and comfort. Surprisingly, contemporaneous bathhouses found at Gezer and Beth Zur in Judea and at Tel Anafa in the Galilee were more elaborate, as they contained more bathtubs and bathing chambers, while some of them were public bathhouses (balaneia). The comparative simplicity of the Hasmonean bathhouse complexes indicates a deliberately limited adoption of Hellenistic (originally Greek) bathing habits.

Netzer also excavated 12 ritual baths (mikva’ot) as well as four “treasuries” (stepless small pools, connected by a channel or a pipe used to “purify” the water of the adjacent bath since drawing water would invalidate it for ritual immersion) within the same palatial complex. This is not only evidence that those living in the palaces observed ritual purity, but that the Hasmoneans invited palace guests and visitors to maintain religious observance and piety in addition to enjoying the recreational facilities of the gardens, pools, and hot bathtubs.

Remember, the Hasmoneans were also high priests and consistently observed ritual purity in their private and public domains. Their priestly status demanded that they eat heave offerings (terumot) in a state of purity and practice ablutions before leaving Jericho to visit or serve at the Temple in Jerusalem. They probably also ate their ordinary food in purity, perhaps immersing every morning. Thus, the placement of a dozen ritual baths in the palace complex may have also been strategically designed to promote their public image as devout, pious priest-kings.

Most of the pottery found in the Hasmonean palaces was made locally (probably near Jericho) and almost completely lacked imported fine wares. Pottery types prevalent at Hellenistic sites and Herodian palaces, such as Eastern Sigillata A, Rhodian amphorae, mold-made lamps, and fusiform unguentaria, were absent here.³ And while some common bowls and plates show the influence of Hellenistic potters, they were not coated with slip before firing. Glass and metal vessels were virtually absent. Only in later stages did simple geometric patterns decorate a small number of vessels. There was hardly any elegant tableware.⁴

We can conclude from this that there was a general tendency among the Hasmoneans to ignore or reject genuine Hellenistic and Roman pottery. This lack of imported vessels did not result from weak050 commercial trading ties with Hellenistic cities, but was a conscious act.

Hellenistic palaces normally contain splendid vessels for feasting and banquets. But the Hasmonean high priests and kings preferred common vessels. They were not interested in using red-slipped and decorated vessels that could have been manufactured especially for them in the workshops around Jericho. They ate as commoners and did not display their royal status by using luxurious vessels. This pattern corresponds to the relative simplicity of their palace interiors.

But why would the Hasmoneans want to avoid being pompous in their domestic and daily life? The avoidance of imported wares manufactured by Gentiles may be due to the observance of ritual purity; non-Jews were considered defiling because of their involvement in idolatry (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:37; 4:36, 41, 43; 13:47–48, 50; 14:7, 36). Another explanation is that the Hasmoneans stressed their Jewish identity and refrained from material culture associated with Gentiles when it came to vessels related to food, thus setting an ethnic boundary in relation to meals, as opposed to swimming pools or bathhouses.

The Hasmonean palaces transmitted contrasting messages. The plan and architecture of the domestic buildings were plain—even becoming increasingly modest over the years, from John Hyrcanus’s large Buried Palace through Jannaeus’s Fortified Palace to the later small Twin Palaces. The use of Hellenistic monumental architecture and art was minimal in comparison to contemporary palaces. The pottery was common. The domestic buildings had only minor features intended to impress visitors. In each palace a simple and single bathtub is almost the only indication of Hellenistic “self-indulgence.” Based on this, the Hasmoneans certainly did not regard themselves as distinguished monarchs.

In bold contrast, the numerous swimming pools surrounded by gardens represent recreational facilities and Hellenistic monumental architecture in a manner that was unique in comparison to other Hellenistic palaces. Built or used by all the Hasmoneans, these swimming pools and gardens were meant to impress visitors and viewers and to display success and prosperity, but one in which they shared that success with their Jewish subjects.

We can conclude that the Hasmoneans were greatly exposed to Hellenistic culture and were well aware of its advantages. Nonetheless, they adopted it in a limited manner; their partial rejection of051 Hellenism was meant to reflect a commitment to their Jewish identity and maintaining close relations with their subjects. The Hasmoneans used specific forms of Hellenistic architecture and recreational facilities in order to display prosperity and success as a means to achieve specific political or cultural aims. Archaeology shows that the Hasmoneans did not appreciate Hellenistic, Greek culture for its own sake or as a superior culture. At the same time, their palaces attest to a complicated and at times contradictory use of material culture, demonstrating the delicate balance of Jewishness and Hellenism, commonness and power, that was required to accommodate Hellenizing forces both among their own Jewish subjects and foreign rulers integral to their kingdom’s stability.⁵

The Jewish dynasty of Hasmoneans ruled Judea for more than a century in the Late Hellenistic period. Their palaces, excavated in Jericho, reveal a great deal about how they lived. But what do the palace architecture and pottery tell us about the delicate balance the Hasmonean rulers tried to strike when projecting the power, wealth, and authority—both secular and religious—of their independent Jewish state to their Jewish subjects and foreign dignitaries?