BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES最新文献

Recent research on the temples at Roman Heliopolis (Baalbek in modern Lebanon) has emphasized visual links between architectural elements within and between the sanctuaries. This paper explores the ways in which the representations of the temples and sanctuaries on the civic coinage of Heliopolis can contribute to this debate. The civic coins are here understood as objects which helped to construct identity and communal memory in the city that issued them.

The creation of memory and place within landscapes has received considerable critical attention in archaeology in recent years, with a focus on power relations, social cohesion, and social memory. As yet, such notions have not been fully explored within Roman contexts, generally in the Eastern Mediterranean, and particularly within the Roman province of Syria. In this region, the well-preserved Graeco-Roman temples of Lebanon have long been interpreted as powerful symbols of the Roman period. However, because of this status, study of these impressive structures has centred primarily on certain aspects, for example, the ‘Roman-ness’ of their architecture and the practical construction of their sacred landscapes. Utilizing notions of memory and power, place and performance, this paper seeks to move beyond such empirical analyses. Focusing on three case studies, it explores elements of the development of place through memory within the rural environment.

Little is known about the emergence of the iconic tower-tombs in the first century bce in Tadmor-Palmyra, the oasis settlement on the eastern edge of the Roman Empire. Scholarship has concentrated on the grand towers erected in the first two centuries ce, yet it is the older and simpler group of towers that holds the key for understanding their appearance. They reveal breaks with existing burial customs and a need to carve out a new memorial landscape in the desert. This article offers a new perspective on the tower-tombs, building on theoretical approaches to monumentality, landscape, and memory. In settings that were simultaneously conspicuous and distant, the towers represent monumental proclamations aimed at the residents of Tadmor-Palmyra and the people of the desert. As tombs, they kept alive the memory of some members of the community, becoming focal points for the (re)production of lineage identity. Internal developments, sedentarization, or migration made such identities vulnerable, and new avenues for competitive innovations about the shared past were sought. The tower-tombs provide the first glimpses of a new Tadmor-Palmyra.

According to Eusebius, the famous Edessene thinker Bardaisan wrote his work On Fate in a time of persecution and addressed it to a figure named Antoninus (HE 4.30). It is commonly surmised that this ‘Antoninus’ was a Roman emperor who sanctioned Christian persecution in some way. But scholars have varied in their interpretations. Some have identified this figure as Caracalla, who visited Edessa in 216–217. But since Eusebius situated Bardaisan’s activity in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, he is often deemed to be the Antoninus in question. As this article surmises, the testimony of Eusebius and other late antique authors, like Epiphanius, reflect certain memories both of the integration of Edessa into the Roman provincial system under Caracalla and the social tensions that it raised. But largely due to Eusebius’ narrative, late antique authors conceived of Marcus Aurelius as the ‘Antoninus’ to whom Bardaisan reportedly addressed On Fate and other apologetic work, and they created social memories of Bardaisan as a would-be confessor in a context of persecution.

Considerations of Jews in antiquity commonly emphasize the role of common institutions (such as the Jerusalem Temple) and shared traumatic experiences (such as exile) in generating distinctive modes of memory formation and memorialization. This paper takes a different approach. By drawing from recent discussions of memory and postmemory developed in the fields of sociology, anthropology, and visual studies, and by considering diverse data from wall paintings, ceiling decorations, inscriptions, graffiti, and mosaics, the ensuing analysis demonstrates how variegated were the practices and dynamics of memory among Jews living in Roman Syria and elsewhere. Asking different types of questions about memorial practices documented in synagogues and surrounding buildings in Dura-Europos and Apamea challenges regnant assumptions about commonalities in Jewish memory and argues for a more localized and spatial approach to Jewish memory practices, the dynamics of which were as personal as they were collective, and as particular as they were locally contingent.