magdala as we know it

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca

Magdala As We Now Know It

Of recent and current archaeological excavations, those atMagdala on theSea of Galilee are among themost important for the study of Jesus and theGospels. But most New Testament scholars probably know little aboutthem beyond what they may have seen reported in the popular media.1

The aim of this article is both to summarize the results of the past decadeof excavations at the site and also to provide some interpretation and con-text for understanding them. The title of the article indicates both that wedo know a great deal more about Magdala than we did ten years ago, butalso that what we can say aboutMagdala at this stage has to be provisional.Not only does excavation continue, but also the results of excavation needcontinuing study and interpretation.

The present authors agree with the scholarly consensus about the iden-tification of the site and the various names of ancient Magdala. Rabbinicliterature refers to this settlement both by the short Aramaic name Mag-dala and by the fuller Aramaic names Migdal S

abaayya and (only once)

Migdal Nunayya. These names are clearly used interchangeably for thesame place, which was known commonly as Magdala (the tower) butneeded the fuller names (the tower of the dyers or the tower of thefish) to distinguish it from other settlements that were also named aftertheir towers. In Greek and Latin literature, including Josephus, thesame settlement is knownby theGreek nameTaricheae (variously spelled,but most often Taqiwaiai). The consensus on these points has been chal-lenged,2 but this is not the place to defend it.3

1 They were briefly reported in this journal by J.K. Zangenberg, Archaeological Newsfrom the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural Galilee, EC 1 (2010), 471484, here475477.

2 N. Kokkinos, The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of Tiberius? PEQ 142 (2010),723; J. Taylor, Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary Magdalene, PEQ 146 (2014),209223.

3 See S.De Luca andA. Lena, Magdala, inGalilee in the Late SecondTemple andMishnaicPeriods, 100BCE200CE, vol. 2,TheArchaeological Record ofGalileanCities, Towns, andVillages (ed. D. Fiensy and J.R. Strange;Minneapolis, forthcoming). Also, for the rabbin-

Early Christianity 6 (2015), 91118ISSN 1868-7032

DOI 10.1628/186870315X14249562918118 2015 Mohr Siebeck

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

1. History of Excavations

It is important to realise that the excavations in the southern and thenorthern parts of the site ofMagdala have been conducted independently,at different times and under different institutional auspices (see fig. 2). Asa result much of what has so far been published aboutMagdala focuses ononly one or other of the areas of excavation. But now that preliminary re-ports of all the major excavations are available, the time is ripe to begin tobring the results together and to attempt to envisage ancientMagdala as awhole.

The southern part of the site is owned by the Franciscan Custody of theHoly Land (Custodia Terrae Sanctae). Extensive excavations in this areahave been conducted on behalf of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum(SBF) of Jerusalem, first in the 1970s by Virgilio Corbo and Stanislao Lof-freda, then in the period 2006 to 2012 by StefanoDe Luca, who is Directorof theMagdala Project. The northern part of the site was purchased in sev-eral stages in the period 2004 to 2009 by the Legionaries of Christ, with theintention of establishing a pilgrimage centre to be known as the MagdalaCenter. As was widely reported at the time, in 2009 work on the construc-tion of the hotel for the Center brought to light a first-century synagogue.This led to the excavation of the synagogue and adjacent areas byDinaAv-shalom-Gorni andArfanNajjar on behalf of the Israel AntiquitiesAuthor-ity (IAA). The IAA is now working in conjunction with the Proyecto Ar-queolgico Magdala of the Mexican university Universidad AnhuacMxico (UNAM). This project is led by Marcela Zapata-Meza, who hasexcavated several areas in the period since 2010. The IAA/Mexican exca-vations are ongoing.4

In addition to these major excavations of Magdala, there have been afew small trial and salvage excavations in various other places on the site.

More technical detail about the archaeological information in this ar-ticle can be found in the various excavation reports listed in the Bibliog-raphy below.

ic literature, see R. Bauckham, Magdala in Rabbinic Literaure, and for Taricheae, seeM.H. Jensen, Magdala/Taricheae and the JewishRevolt, both inMagdala, JewishCity ofFish (ed. M. Aviam, R. Bauckham, and S. De Luca; Waco, Tex. , forthcoming, 2016).

4 Since the opening of the Magdala Center in May 2014, the excavations in the northernpart ofMagdala have been open to the public in the form of an Archaeological Park. Theexcavations in the Franciscan area are currently inaccessible, though there are plans toopen them to the public.

92 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

Fig. 1 Aerial view of the landscape of Magdala, lookingwest to the Arbel cliff and the passof Wadi Hamam, with the major excavations. On the left side, within the fenced areabelonging to the Custody of the Holy Land, are the excavations carried out in the 70s andby the Magdala Project on behalf of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF). In thecenter, in the background, are the Areas A and B excavated by the Universidad AnhuacMxico Sur (UNAM). On the right side, behind the white fence, the Area C with thesynagogue excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) (by courtesy of S. De Luca, Magdala Project, photo SkyView, 2010).

Magdala As We Now Know It 93

stefanocopyright

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

Fig. 2 Archaeological plan from joined maps of the main excavations at Magdala. It in-cludes the IAAs Areas AD uncovered by D. Avshalom-Gorni and A. Najjar (by courtesy ofIAA Map and Survey Dept. , 2012); Areas AE exposed by the University Anhuac MxicoSur (UNAM) led byM. Zapata-Meza (by coutesy ofM. Zapata-Meza, 2012); and theMagdalaProject updated plan of the excavations directed by S. De Luca, in which the buildingexcavated in the 70s on behalf of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF) are also in-cluded (by courtesy of S. De Luca and A. Ricci, Magdala Project, 2013). The placing of themaps into a geo-referred grid (New Israel Grid) was done by S. De Luca and A. Ricci( Magdala Project, 2014).


stefanocopyright

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

2. Outline History of Magdala/Taricheae

There was some kind of settlement on the site from as early as the thirdcentury BCE, but nothing is known about it. The foundation of the cityof Magdala/Taricheae must be related to the Hasmonean conquest ofthe area in the second century BCE. From the literary sources we knowthat it was a large and significant settlement in the middle of the first cen-tury BCE, when it supported the Hasmonean Aristobulus in alliance withthe Parthians against Rome and was taken by the Roman army. The ar-chaeology shows that Magdala flourished in the Early Roman period,from which much of the expansion of the city to the north probablydates. It was capital of a toparchy in eastern Galilee and remained soeven after the creation of the new city of Tiberias nearby (ca. 19 CE). Itseconomicprosperitymust have beenbased on its dominance of the fishingindustry on the lake of Galilee and its key position on trading routes.

During the First Revolt, Josephus, as governor of Galilee, made Mag-dala/Taricheae his headquarters. In 67 Tituss army took the city and de-featedmany of the rebels who had gathered in the city in a bloody battle onthe lake nearby. The city does not seem to have suffered much physicaldamage at this time, though the population was reduced. Whether itwas involved in the SecondRevolt is debatable, but in any case there is con-tinuity of habitation over much of the site down to the fourth century,when the earthquake of 363 ruinedMagdala along with other settlementsacross the region. Later a Byzantinemonastery and a shrine ofMaryMag-dalene were established and a new harbor and fishing facilities are evi-dence of renewed use of the site.5

3. Urban Plan

Magdalawas a planned city, built to a plan that goes back to itsHasmoneanfoundation. The excavations in the southern part of the site have revealedthat the city streets were laid out on an orthogonal pattern, consisting ofnorth-south andwest-east roads intersecting at right angles. This is the so-called Hippodamian grid, characteristic of Hellenistic and Roman cities,but not of cities in the Near East prior to the influence of Hellenism. The

5 For an excellent account of Magdala based on the literary sources and the earlier exca-vations, see U. Leibner, Settlement andHistory in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Gal-ilee (TSAJ 127; Tbingen, 2009), 214237.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

orthogonal plan of Magdala appears to go back to the foundation of thecity in the Hasmonean period, making it one of the earliest examples ofHellenistic-style urban planning in Jewish Galilee. It shows that Magdala

Fig. 3 Excavation areas of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF) (detail of fig. 2).


stefanocopyright

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

was intended from the beginning to be a city in theHellenistic style, a Jew-ish counterpart to the Gentile cities of the Decapolis to the south-east andthe Huleh valley to the north.

In the harbor area, within the Franciscan compound (see fig. 3), there isa broad, paved road running north-south (the Cardo Maximus) (V1V2)and a narrower, paved street running east-west (a Decumanus) (V3). Theorthogonal pattern is also found in the residential area that was partiallyexcavated at some distance to the west of the Franciscan compound (SBFAreaH2, V5).Moreover, the streets in the northern area (see fig. 4), datingfrom the Early Roman period, also conform to a roughly orthogonal pat-tern (IAA Area C; UNAM Areas A, B, C, E).

4. Harbors and Anchorages

Already in the Hasmonean period Magdala had an impressive quay. Ad-joining the quay therewas also amassive tower,with casematewalls,whichstooduntil the renovationof theport in themiddle of the first century CE. Itmay be the feature that gave the city its Aramaic name (Magdala, thetower), though another possibility is that the tower in this case wasthe towering cliff of Mount Arbel immediately behind the city. The con-tinuing importance of the port is apparent from the fact that the quay wasreplaced and extended in the early Roman period.

According to Josephus, in 67 CE the households ofMagdala were able tosupply himwith a fleet of 230 boats (B.J. 2.635; cf.Vita 163),most of whichwould have been small boats of the kind that were standard on the lake,requiring a crew of five (four rowers and a steersman). Although Josephushabitually exaggerates numbers, in the context of this story it would nothave been in his interests to exaggerate, and so we should probably takethe number seriously. He describes the boats as all the boats that hecould find on the lake (B.J. 2.635), but this cannot mean that he collectedthem from places at any great distance from Magdala. Not only was hecarefully keeping his plans secret, but he also had to assemble the fleetand sail it to Magdala within a single day (B.J. 2.634). The number mayseem very large, but it indicates the exceptional extent to which the peopleofMagdalawere dependent on the lake.Nodoubt themajority of the boatswere fishing boats, but others will have been used for transport and trade.Boats that were used only seasonally for fishing could be put to other usesat other times.What is clear is that Magdala dominated the fishing indus-try on the lake.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

However, we do not have to suppose that all these boatsmade use of theharbor we have just described. At least by the time of Josephus, the Mag-dalene fishing industry seems to have been locatedmainly in the northernarea,where a road running beside the lake has beenuncovered in twoplac-es (IAA Area A, UNAMArea D, see fig. 5). In the more northerly of theseplaces (IAA Area A) a wide stone wall that probably served as a quay wasfoundbeside a large building thatmayhave served as a storeroom, perhapsin connection with the fish products for which Magdala was famous (seebelow). We should probably imagine the long lakeside front of Magdalalooking something like amodernmarina, with boats tethered or anchoredall along the shore. Even the lakeside north of the urban area, extendingtowards modern Ginnosar, may have supplied mooring places. The fa-mous Ginnosar boat or Kinneret boat (also popularly known as theJesus boat) was discovered just off shore in this area. Since this mererump of a boat seems to be what was left when anything that could be re-used had been stripped from it, it has been plausibly argued that there was

Fig. 4 Excavation areas of the Universidad Anhuac Mxico (UNAM) and the IsraelAntiquities Authority (IAA) (detail of fig. 2).


stefanocopyright

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

a boatyard on the shore, where boats were made and repaired.6 Josephusimplies there was such a boatyard in the vicinity (B.J. 3.505).

Turning our attention once again to the splendidly built harbor in thesouth, in both its Hasmonean andHerodian phases it is closely connectedwith the public buildings: the quadriporticus (a square courtyardwith col-onnades) (SBFArea F, see fig. 3) and the baths. A flight of steps leads fromthe quay to the quadriporticus. In cities of theHellenistic world there wereoften public baths situated near harbors, where travellers could take ad-vantage of them along with residents. The complex of harbor, quadripor-ticus and baths in Magdala seems designed as the most public face of thecity,more for the benefit ofmerchants and distinguished travellers, as wellas the wealthier citizens, rather than for local fishermen. Magdala wouldbe a place to stop on the branch of theViaMaris that ran beside the lake atthis point and also the port of embarkation for travelling across the lake toKursi (whence a major road ran to the east) and the Decapolis cities ofHippos and Gadara (both of which had harbors on the lake). Some ofMagdalas importance in these respects was doubtless stolen by Tiberiasfrom the 20s onwards, which may account for the unfriendly rivalry be-tween the two cities that is reflected in Josephus narratives of his time inthat area during the Jewish War.

6 J.R. Steffy, The Boat: A Preliminary Study of Its Construction, in The Sea of GalileeBoat: A 2000 Year Old Discovery from the Sea of Legends (ed. S. Waschmann; 2nd ed.;Cambridge, Mass., 2000), 2948, here 47.

Fig. 5 Excavation areas of the Universidad Anhuac Mxico (UNAM) and the IsraelAntiquities Authority (IAA) (detail of fig. 2).


stefanocopyright

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

An important result of the excavation of the port and the discovery ofthe mooring stones is that we now know the water level of the lake of Gal-ilee in the Hasmonean and early Roman periods. The level has fluctuatedgreatly over the centuries, but at this time, apparently owing to high rain-fall, the level was around 209meters below sea level, the highest level in thehistory of the lake. This has implications for dating other harbors aroundthe lake.MendelNun identified a considerable number of ancient harborsaround the lake and it has been generally assumed that they were used inthe first century CE.7Hismap of the lake showing these anchorages iswide-ly known.However, it nowappears thatmost of these harbor structures areat too low a level to have been built and used in the early Roman period.8

They must be ascribed to the Byzantine period when the level of the lakewas lower. The only exception to this is the harbor at Kursi, which by thiscriterion appears contemporarywith theHasmonean/earlyRomanport atMagdala. Of course, the discovery that most of the harbors discovered byNun aremuch later than this period does notmean that therewere no har-bors at these places in the early Romanperiod, only thatwe donot have theevidence. It is possible that, as the water level dropped, boulders that hadformed harbors in the early Roman period were moved further down theshore to their present position.

5. Baths and Palaestra

Close to the port is a large thermal complex (SBFAreas C, D, E, see fig. 3),the earliest stage of which goes back, like the port itself, to theHasmoneanperiod. Public bathswere a universal feature ofHellenistic cities and so it isnot surprising that Magdala, if it were founded as a Jewish city in Hellen-istic style, should have had public baths. However, it is notable that, al-though theHasmonean rulers hadHellenistic-style baths within their pal-aces at Jericho,9 Magdalas are the only known public baths in Jewish Pal-estine in the Hasmonean period apart from one such facility built withinthe palace gardensbut outside thepalaces in Jericho in the lateHasmonean

7 M. Nun, Sea of Galilee: Newly Discovered Harbours From New Testament Days (3rd ed.;Kibbutz Ein Gev, 1992).

8 This includes the harbor at Magdala that was identified by Nun. This harbor which islocated further to the east than the newly discovered structures was contemporarywiththe Byzantine monastery at Magdala.

9 E.Regev,TheHasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity (JAJSup 10;Gttingen, 2013),251253.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

period.10 If the baths in the royal palaces attest only a private adoption oftheHellenistic culture of bathing for pleasure and health on the part of theHasmonean rulers, the baths ofMagdala represent amore public accultur-ation of Jewish city culture to Hellenistic ways, for baths brought withthem the culture of communal relaxation and recreational exercise forwhich they existed in the Hellenistic world. The Hasmoneans did not in-troduce them in, for example, Jerusalem, where cultural conservatismmight still have made them unwelcome, but in the new city they foundedthey were probably able to exercise a free hand. As far as Hellenistic andRoman baths within Jewish society are concerned, this was a pioneeringmove that was later followed by the widespread acceptance of baths as anormal feature of Jewish urban life in Palestine, as it evidently was inthe rabbinic period.11

Unlike Roman baths, Greek baths (balaneia) did not have warm poolswith underfloor heating, though the heating of rooms and bathtubs withfurnaces had become common by this period.12 The Hasmonean baths atMagdala had both oval bathtubs and stepped pools (as did theHasmoneanpalaces). The square building D1 (SBFArea D, see fig. 3) that, when firstexcavated in the 1970s, was said to have been a synagogue, at least in onephase of its use, has nowbeen shown to be a fountain house of a type foundelsewhere in the Hellenistic world.13

What theRomans gave to ancient bath culturewas the roomheatedby ahypocaust (the caldarium) and the organization of rooms and pools into aclear circuit that visitors to the baths would follow. Both these develop-ments are to be seen in the baths at Magdala as they were remodelledin the earlyRomanperiod. The rathermeagre remains of frescoes andmo-saics suggest that the whole complex was lavishly decorated. Of course,there were elaborate water works. The baths continued in use into thelate Roman period, when they were again renovated and enlarged. A no-table feature of this later development is a communal latrine, something

10 Regev, Hasmoneans (see n. 9), 252.11 Y.Z. Eliav, Bathhouses as Places of Social and Cultural Interaction, in The Oxford

Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine (ed. C. Hezser; Oxford, 2010),605622. For other public bathhouses in Jewish settlements in the early Roman period,seeY.Z.Eliav, TheRomanBaths as a Jewish Institution:AnotherLook at theEncounterBetween Judaism and the Greco-Roman Culture, JSJ 31 (2000), 416454, here 452453.

12 F. Yegl, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (New York, 1992), 21, 23.13 R. Bonnie and J. Richard, Building D1 at Magdala Revisited in the Light of Public-

Fountain Architecture in the Late-Hellenistic East, IEJ 62 (2012), 7188.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

characteristic of Roman usage that was generally not adopted in the NearEast.14

Adjoining the baths is a quadriporticus (SBFArea F, see fig. 3) a largesquare courtyard with colonnaded porticos along all four sides. This wasnot, as Corbo, who excavated it in the 1970s, thought, a market. Its designand its connection with the baths (one of the main entrances to the bathswas from the quadriporticus) leave little doubt that it was a palaestra anarea for recreational exercise. The Greek baths had evolved from the con-junction of the palaestra of the classical Greek gymnasium, where youngmen engaged in strenuous competitive athletics, with the hot bath (un-known to the gymnasia of an earlier period). So a palaestra becamepart of the standard design of bathing complexes across the Greco-Roman world.15 Exercise was to precede bathing. Exercise in the palaestrawas integral to the benefits of the baths as medical opinion in the Greco-Roman world understood them. Exercise was no less part of the ritual of avisit to Roman baths than it was in the case of Hellenistic baths. However,this does not mean that most people engaged in the strenuous athletics ofthe classical Greek gymnasium. The baths were far too popular with peo-ple of all ages and ranks of society for that to be the case, and in factmedicalauthorities generally recommended gentle, rather than strenuous exer-cise.16 In Roman bathing establishments, recreations such as ball gameswere a common activity in the palaestra.17

The Greek tradition of nudity while exercising was continued in theHellenistic East, but the Romans themselves were less happy with nudityand donned light costumes for exercise.18 Some even wore some kind ofbathing costume,19 although most ancient peoples, whatever they feltabout nudity in other contexts, thought it was necessary and appropriatein or near water. In the rabbinic period the rabbis seem to have had noproblem about that.20 But whether the Jewish citizens of Magdala exer-cised naked in the palaestra we do not know. It is certainly possible

14 According to W. Ball, Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire (London,2000), 304, baths in the Roman East never included communal public lavatories.This probably just reflected a difference in attitude, rather than cleanliness: in theEast the actwas a very private one, but in theWest it seems to havebeen farmore social.

15 There are many examples in Yegl, Baths (see n. 12).16 Yegl, Baths (see n. 12), 35, 37.17 Yegl, Baths (see n. 12), 3537.18 Yegl, Baths (see n. 12), 3435.19 Yegl, Baths (see n. 12), 35. For possible Jewish equivalents in rabbinic literature, Eliav,

Roman Baths (see n. 11), 446.20 Eliav, Bathhouses (see n. 11), 616617.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

that Jewish sensibilities led people to do as theRomans did.Nor is it easy totell whether men and women exercised and bathed together. A commonpractice was for baths to have different times for men and for women,something that the archaeological record is not likely to reveal. Butthere is a section of the baths where the objects collected are mainlythose used by women, perhaps indicating a separate section for women.

One of the best known discoveries at Magdala is the floor mosaic thatdepicts a boat, a kantharos, a fish andother objectswhose identity has beendisputed (see fig. 6)21 It dates from the first century CE and was found in aroom (C6) originally thought to belong to an urban villa. Consequentlysome attempts to interpret the mosaic have assumed that it graced thehouse of a wealthyMagdalene and was intended to symbolize key charac-teristics of the city, especially its fishing industry. So far as can be gatheredfrom the remains of the Kinneret boat it bore some resemblance to theboat in the mosaic, and those who reconstructed the Kinneret boat reliedto some extent on the assumption that the boat in themosaic intentionallydepicts the kind of boat that was in use on the lake.

However, further excavation has made it clear that the mosaic adorneda floor in the baths, and this was the clue to a reevaluation of themosaic ascomposed ofmotifs appropriate to such a setting. The fish is not a speciesof fish to be found in the lake of Galilee, but a dolphin. Mosaics in bathsoften evoked a maritime setting, to which both the dolphin and the boatbelong. (This doesnot exclude thepossibility that the craftsmenwhomadethe mosaic picked from their pattern-book the type of boat that most re-sembled the boats familiar in Magdala.) The objects displayed along theupper section of the design are all objects used in exercise and bathing:two strigils (the tools used to scrape oil, dirt and perspiration from thebody), suspended in a holder along with an aryballos (a vessel containingoil) ; a discus; and a pair of halteres (weights used for the long jump or forweight training). The kantharosmay allude to the drinking of wine in thebaths. Finally, the twowordGreek inscription (JAI SU) is a known formula(found, for example, in severalmosaics atAntioch) thatmayhave either an

21 For earlier interpretations of the iconography, see A. Raban, The Boat from MigdalNunia and the Anchorages of the Sea of Galilee from the Time of Jesus, InternationalJournal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17 (1988), 311329; R.Reich, A Note on the Roman Mosaic at Magdala on the Sea of Galilee, LASBF 41(1991), 455458.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

apotropaic function (perhaps against the demons thought to lurk in baths)or a welcoming function (or both).22

The various motifs can mostly be paralleled elsewhere, but the partic-ular combination is unique to this mosaic. They combine to evoke thepleasures of the palaestra and the baths, expressed in a way that strongly

Fig. 6 The central panel (emblema) of themosaic floor in C6 (SBFArea C), after restoration,featuring in the lower part a Mediterranean vessel, a dolphin, a kantharos, and, in theupper part, a pair of tied-up strigils with an aryballos, a disk for throwing, and a couple ofhalteres for long-jump (by courtesy of S. De Luca, Magdala Project, 2009).

22 This is a brief summary of the discussion in S. De Luca and A. Lena, TheMosaic of theThermal Bath Complex of Magdala Reconsidered: Archaeological Context, Epigraphyand Iconography, in Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essay inHonour of Leah Di Segni (ed G.C. Bottini, L.D. Chrupcaa and J. Patrich; SBF CollectioMaior 54; Milan, 2014), 133.


stefanocopyright

Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

associates those pleasures with Hellenistic culture. Regardless of howmany people who used these baths actually threw a discus or competedin the long jump, the depiction of these objects suggests the athletic idealsof the Greeks.

However, these baths are by no means indistinguishable from bathsthroughout theHellenistic East. There are specially Palestinian and Jewishfeatures, such as the stepped pools (which either imitate the standard de-sign of miqvaot or conform to a local design that was adopted both forbathing pools and for ritual pools). Stepped pools are not unique tobaths in Palestine, but they aremuchmore common there than elsewhere.This could be considered an instance of Warwick Balls thesis about theNear East generally: that local traditions remained very strong, even in ar-chitecture, beneath a veneer of Romanization.23

Baths throughout the Greco-Roman world were abundantly furnishedwith statues, but there is no trace of statues at Magdala.24 Moreover, themosaics are limited to abstract designs and inanimate objects withthe exception of the dolphin whereas bath mosaics elsewhere typicallyfeature people and gods in connection with such objects. Jewish interpre-tation of the prohibition of images could be more or less strict, but in thelate Second Temple period Palestinian Jews seem to have been agreed thatboth three-dimensional statues and any representations of the humanform25 were too close to idolatry and unacceptable.26 For those who com-missioned the mosaic, no doubt the dolphin did not seem a plausible ob-ject of worship.27 On the spectrum of Jewish interpretation of the prohi-bition of images it represents a rather minor concession.28 Even in the

23 Ball, Rome in the East (see n. 14), esp. ch. 7. For parallel observations about Romaniza-tion in first-century Galilee, see B.W. Root, First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examinationof the Sources (WUNT2/387; Tbingen, 2014), 131, and the literature towhich he refersin n. 89.

24 Eliav, Roman Baths (see n. 11), 430438, argues that in the rabbinic period too therewere Jewish bathhouseswithout statues, though even some rabbis did not see the statuesas a reason for not using baths.

25 There is one instance fromMagdala of the representation of a human face. It occurs ononeof four fragments of a basalt frieze,whichwere reused in theByzantineperiod.Theiroriginal position is unknown. Within a swastika is the head of a man wearing a pileus.See S. De Luca, La Citt-Ellenistico-Romano di Magdala/Tarichaeae: Gli Scavi delMagdala Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione Preliminare e Prospettive di Indagine,LASBF 49 (2009), 343562, here 452 and fig. 136.

26 This was evidently less of a consensus after the Second Temple period. Galilean syna-gogue mosaics of later periods portray humans and animals without restraint.

27 Human figures and dolphins appear on some discus oil lamps found in the baths.28 The situation is similar in the (better preserved) baths of theHasmonean andHerodian

palaces, whereD.B. Small, Late Hellenistic Baths in Palestine, BASOR 265 (1987), 59


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

houses of the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem there were decorative rep-resentations of birds and fish.29

The baths are important as an instance of Hellenization and Romani-zation that goes beyond Greek language or Roman architecture in that itentails the adoption of a whole dimension of everyday life that had noprecedent in traditional Jewish culture but was universal in the urban cul-tures of the Greco-Roman world. At the same time it was adapted.30 ForPalestinian Jews the life of theGreco-Roman cities had acceptable and un-acceptable faces. This is reflected more generally at Magdala, which hadbaths, a palaestra and a hippodrome, but no theatre or odeon (so far aswe know), and nonymphaeum (the fountain-house performs the functionof a public fountain, but presumably without representations of pagangods).

6. Synagogue

Most recent publicity about excavations at Magdala has been connectedwith the discovery of the synagogue on the property of theMagdalaCenterin 2009 (IAA Area C, see fig. 4). It is very significant since it is the onlysynagogue of the pre-70 period within Galilee that has been discoveredand excavated so far. From the design of the building there can be nodoubt that it was a synagogue.31 It resembles the synagogue at Gamla(also pre-70), though the latter is considerably larger. The Magdala syna-gogue has a large, narrow vestibule, which may have been used as a studyroom (bet midrash), amain hall, and a small room, probably used for stor-ing the Torah scrolls. The main hall has a raised corridor around all foursides, aroundwhich there is a continuous stone bench. The corridor is de-limited on its inner side by a stone framework that might also have been

74, here 65, notes only one representation of an animal: an aquatic bird in a wall dec-oration.

29 Note also the piece of a stone vessel with the inscription C5LK (sacrifice) and two birdsroughly sketched on it (M. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of An-cient Jerusalem [trans. I. Friedman; New York, 1985], 159160; Corpus inscriptionumIudaeae/Palestinae no. 8). It must have been part of the system for offering sacrifices inthe Temple.

30 Y. Eliav calls this filtered absorption or controlled incorporation (Bathhouses [seen. 11], 609; cf. id., Roman Baths [see n. 11], 426427).

31 D.B. Binder, TheMystery of theMagdala Stone, inACity Set on aHill : Essays inHonorof James F. Strange (ed. D.A.Warner;MountainHome, Ark., 2014), 1748, here 2022,argues that it fulfils several criteria for identification as a synagogue.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

used as a bench. It is suggested that therewere six columns in themainhall,supporting the roof, though only some fragments of columns were found.The walls and the columns were covered with brightly colored frescoes.There are sections of a floor mosaic (consisting of rosettes and a swastikameander pattern) in the corridor, as well as, elsewhere in the corridor, thefoundation for a mosaic, composed of small stones. There is also a floormosaic in the small room, whose walls were also decorated with colorfulfrescoes.

The excavators, Dina Avshalom-Gorni and ArfanNajjar, identify threeconstruction phases of the building. In the earliest phase, dated to themid-dle of the first century BCE, it was probably not used as a synagogue. Theydo not date the second phase, even though this would be crucial for thosewho confidently claim that Jesus must have preached in this synagogue.The third phase was the renovation work in which the floor mosaic inthe corridor of themain hall was begun. A terminus post quem for this ren-ovation is provided by a coin of the year 43 that came to light in the foun-dation layer of the mosaic. Also relevant is the fact that a coin from year 2of the Revolt (67 CE) was found in the street outside the synagogue.

The excavators argue that the renovation of the building was aban-doned, since the mosaic appears to be incomplete not because it hasbeen damaged but because it was never completed. They suggest thatthe renovation was interrupted by the outbreak of the Revolt in Galileeand that the synagogue was abandoned and destroyed around the timeof the Roman conquest of Magdala in 67 CE. Since signs of deliberate de-struction by the Roman army are lacking, what might have happened isthat, in order to make the northern area ofMagdala defensible, the peopleabandoned the synagogue as indefensible and took materials from thebuilding to use in fortifying a line of defense further south. Possible evi-dence of this is the fact that the road leading out of the city to the west, justsouth of the synagogue, has been blocked with sections of columns appar-ently taken from the building. A coin of the year 80 was found on the syn-agogues ceiling collapse,which is consistentwith the proposed associationof the synagogues destruction with the First Revolt, but could also, ofcourse, allow for a date some years after 80, such as around the time ofthe Second Revolt (132135 CE).

One of the present authors (De Luca) has raised important questionsabout this reconstruction of the synagogues history, suggesting that,after the abandonment of work on the mosaic and serious damage tothe synagogue, there was a major reconstruction and renewed use ofthe synagogue, perhaps in the period between the two Revolts. Its present


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

state might then be due to another Roman conquest of the city in the timeof Bar Kokhba. (There is no direct evidence that Magdala participated inthe Second Revolt and evidence that this Revolt affected Galilee at all ishard to find, but at the nearby settlement at Khirbet Hamam, in theArbel valley, one phase shows a layer of destruction and abandonmentat the time of the Second Revolt.32) Another possibility is that the syna-gogue and the area around it suffered disastrous flooding,33 caused bythe water that always flows abundantly frommount Arbel. (Several chan-nels in the northern area testify to the need to avert flooding by conveyingwater to the lake.) In that case, the blocking of the street just south of thesynagogue could have been an attempt at defense against the flood.

The excavators reconstructionof the history of the synagogue is relatedto their claim that thewhole area of the city in the vicinity of the synagogue(IAAAreaC)was also abandoned in the late first century CE. So farwe onlyhave the excavators Preliminary Report, which is relatively brief, and wemust await the full presentation of the results of the IAAs excavations inthe northern area of Magdala. From other parts of the northern area (theUNAM excavations, see fig. 4) it would seem that parts of the area wereabandoned around the end of the century (UNAM Area A, buildingsE1 and E3), but other parts were inhabited until at least the third century(this is shown by the pottery finds inAreaC, building E7). The overall pat-tern of habitation may only become clear with further excavation of thenorthern area. If the literary evidence is brought into the picture, Josephusaccount of the fall ofMagdala to the Romans in 67 CE does not suggest thatthe city suffered significant destruction but it does indicate significant lossof life among the native inhabitants of the city, which can certainly be ex-pected to have led to the abandonment of parts of the urban area.

The opulence of the synagogues decorations suggests that it benefitedfromone ormore wealthy donors. It need not suggest that the communityit served was wealthy. It is worth pointing out that the swastika meandermosaic on the synagogue floor is identical to a floor mosaic uncovered byCorbo in what we now know to be a room in the baths (SBFArea C, roomC1, see fig. 3). Both must be the work of the same local mosaic workshop,which was probably also responsible for the mosaic in the House of the

32 U. Leibner, Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): the Synagogue andthe Settlement, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23 (2010), 221237, here 224226. Onthe question whether the Second Revolt affected Galilee, see also W. Horbury, JewishWar under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 2014), 349352.

33 E.M. Meyers andM.A. Chancey,Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 3, Alexanderto Constantine (New Haven, 2012), 211.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

Dice (UNAM Area A, building E1, see fig. 4). This is one indication thatthe northern area was not, as has been suggested, culturally quite distinctfrom the southern area of public buildings around the port.

The synagogue is small. The main hall has an area of about 120 squaremeters.34The excavators say that it had a seating capacity of about 120 peo-ple. They do not explain how the calculationwasmade, but now that ChadSpigel has developed a sophisticated methodology, involving a number ofdifferent coefficients, for estimating the seating capacities of ancient syn-agogues,35 a re-calculation using hismethodologymight be illuminating.36

But, in any case, the synagogue is small, and the excavators have been re-ported in themedia suggesting that it belonged to a specific anddistinctivecommunity of worshippers, a suggestion supported also by the surprisinglocation of the synagogue at the northern limit of the city. Accordingly,they speculate that it may have been a synagogue belonging to a groupof Jewish Christians.37 This is quite a dubious argument. Spigel hasshown that the seating capacities of most synagogues were much smallerthan the population of the settlements in which they were located mightsuggest.Amongpossible reasons for this, it seemswehave to conclude thatmany Jews did not regularly attend synagogue.38 Moreover, it is not at allclear that the synagogue marks the northern limit of the urban area. Trialand salvage excavations to the north of the synagogue have uncovered ev-idence of buildings spanning the period from the first to the fourth cen-turies CE, though it is quite uncertain how extensive such habitation was.But it seems there is no need to associate the synagogue with some specialgroup. It is quite possible, of course, that another synagogue was locatedsomewhere in the southern parts of the city that have not been excavated.

34 Israel Antiquities Authority, One of the Oldest Synagogues in theWorld was Exposedat Migdal (9/13), http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1601&module_id=#as (accessed January 10, 2015).

35 C.S. Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities: Methodology, Analysis and Limits(TSAJ 149; Tbingen, 2012). Though he applies the methodology to many Palestiniansynagogues, he makes no mention of the synagogue at Magdala, doubtless because theinformation he would have needed was not available.

36 As an example of Spigels results, themain hall of the synagogue at Gamla, which has anarea of 320 m2, he calculates could have seated between 454 and 536 persons, while theestimated population of Gamla is 3,0004,000 (Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities[see n. 35], 7584, 327).

37 Note that this claim, based on the location of the synagogue, is inconsistent with theclaim that Mary Magdalene and/or Jesus visited this synagogue (also made by atleast one of the excavators, as reported in the media), for in that case there wouldhave been a synagogue (presumably phase 2) in this location before there could havebeen a group of Jewish Christians in the city.

38 Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities (see n. 35), ch. 7.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

7. Synagogue Stone

The most remarkable object found in the synagogue is the decoratedstone. This is a rectangular limestone block, with four short, unevenfeet that were probably meant to be sunk into the floor. The four sidesand the top face are engraved with a variety of objects and motifs. Thestone was found within the central part of the main hall of the synagogue,towards the south-east (not in the center of the hall, as some reports erro-neously stated, perhaps misled by the fact that a replica of the stone hasnow been placed in the center). Whether this was where it was meantto stand when the synagogue was in use is uncertain. The object isquite unique apart from the somewhat similar stone (of uncertain date)that was subsequently found at Horvat Kur.39

The initial publicity given to the stone naturally focused on the depic-tion of the Menorah (seven-branched candlestick in the Temple) that ap-pears on one of the short sides and is the most obviously identifiable of theobjects depicted. But the stone is important for much more than providinga rare example of a depiction of the Menorah from the period when theSecond Temple was still standing (which is when the excavators datethe stone). With the Menorah as the starting-point it is possible to inter-pret all the iconography of the stone as plausibly referring to the Temple inJerusalem, even though some images can be more certainly identified thanothers. The stone has so far been the subject of three major articles byMordechai Aviam,40 Richard Bauckham41 and Donald Binder42 whichagree in understanding the whole of the stones iconography as relatedto the Temple. Bauckham and Binder, who worked independently ofeach other, both depend on and take further Aviams work, agreeingwith him in important respects but differing from him in others. It istherefore of interest to note both that there is both a substantial degreeof agreement among all three scholars and also some further agreementbetween Bauckham and Binder at points where they differ from Aviam.

39 J.K. Zangenberg, Ein Dorf auf dem Hgel: Neue Entdeckungen des Kinneret RegionalProject in der Synagoge von Horvat Kur, in Bauern, Fischer und Propheten: Galila zurZeit Jesu (ed. J.K. Zangenberg and J. Schrter; Darmstadt, 2012), 131144, here 140143.

40 M. Aviam, The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal: A Holistic Interpre-tation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean Jews at the Time of Jesus, NovT 55 (2013),205220.

41 R. Bauckham, Further Thoughts on the Migdal Synagogue Stone, NovT 57 (2015),113135.

42 Binder, The Mystery of the Magdala Stone (see n. 31).


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

We cannot enter into the details of the iconography here. Some aspectsare clear, others remain uncertain and debatable. However, what can nowbe said with confidence is that the images on the stone represent the Tem-ple, especially the sanctuary building and its contents: the Holy of Holies,whereGod himself resided, and theHoly Place, with itsMenorah, incensealtar, libation vessels and showbread table.

As to the function of the stone, there have been a number of proposals,43

ofwhichAviams is themost developed.He argues that it served as the basefor a lectern on which the Torah was read.44 Others have suggested that itwas a table on which offerings were placed before being taken to the Tem-ple. However, given that the stones iconography shows that it representsthe Temple and wasmeticulously designed for this purpose, it can be que-ried whether it need have had any function additional to this.45 What thestone would have done was make constantly visible to the people assem-bled in the synagogue the connection of what they were doing with theTemple in Jerusalem. For this reason it makes a hugely important newcontribution to discussion of early synagogues in Palestine.

8. Fishing Industry

Magdala was superbly situated for exploiting the abundant fisheries of thelake of Galilee. No doubt this was a major reason for its foundation in theHasmonean period and its growth and prosperity in the Early Roman pe-riod. But a fishing industry cannot flourish simply by selling fresh fish,which does not stay fresh for very long. Somemeans of preservation is re-quired. The simplest method of preserving fish was simply to dry it in thesun, something any householder or any small group of fishermen could dofor themselves. But for better quality the preferred method in the ancientworld was salting. Salting fish was a huge industry right across the Romanworld, practised both in huge installations on the coasts of the westernMediterranean and the Atlantic coast of the Iberian peninsula, but alsoin relatively small workshops in towns and cities. Typically the saltingprocess produced not only salted fish but also fish sauce (of which the

43 Binder, The Mystery of the Magdala Stone (see n. 31), 4143, lists and discusses var-ious proposals.

44 Meyers and Chancey, Alexander (see n. 33), 212, agree with Aviam, though withoutnaming him.

45 Across-cultural parallel is provided by the EthiopianOrthodox Church. The Ark of theCovenant (as they believe) is in Axum, but every church has a miniature replica of it.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

best known kind was garum) and fish paste (allec). These multiple prod-ucts of the same process ensured that no part of the fishwent towaste. Fishsaucewas hugely popular throughout theGreco-Romanworld in all strataof society.

From the literary sources it is clear thatMagdala was well known for itsfish processing industry, which gave it its Greek nameTaricheae (fish fac-tories), first attested in 43 BCE.46 It now seems likely that some ofMagdalasfish factories have been found. If so, they are probably the first fish facto-ries to have been found and excavated in the eastern provinces of theRoman empire.

They are situated on the street that runs from east to west just south ofthe synagogue (IAA Area C, see fig. 4). It leads out of the city to the westand to the east very probably goes to the quay alongside the lake. From thewestern end of this street another runs south (IAA Area C, UNAM AreaE). These streets compose an industrial-mercantile area, consisting ofworkshops where various products were both produced and sold.Along the east-west street is a series of five or six workshops built to abroadly common design. Common features include four or five vats (ofvarying dimensions) towards the back of each shop, a stepped shaft lead-ing underground at the back of the shop, and a paved area at the front ofthe shop (not preserved in all cases). The sets of vats resemble those foundin small fish-processing workshops elsewhere, such as at Sabratha inNorth Africa.47No residues of fish have been found in the vats atMagdala,but premises used for dealingwith fish need to be kept clean.No doubt thefloors were sluiced at the end of every day and the vats cleaned after eachuse.

The stepped shafts could have been used for collecting water from anunderground source (fish processing required a lot of water), but theyprobably (also?) functioned as miqvaot for the workers to use (they arelarge enough for just one person to immerse). Because fish processing en-tails bringing dead fish into contact with water, impurity can be conveyedfrom the workers to the product. Bathing immediately before work wouldensure that the salted fish and the garum were kosher, giving them a con-siderable advantage,within JewishPalestine, over fish products fromGen-tile sources. (From a halakhic perspective the issue is the same as in the

46 Cicero, Fam. 12.11 (letter from Cassius to Cicero).47 A.Wilson, Commerce and Industry inRomanSabratha,Libyan Studies 30 (1999), 29

52, here 2942.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

cases of oil and wine presses, near which, in Galilee, miqvaot have beenfound.)

The shops are also ideally situated: the fish could be brought along thestreet from the lake and the fish products transported along the samestreet, either to the west for destinations inland or to the east for transportacross the lake. The excavators report was very cautious: It is possiblethat the buildings in this quarter were used in conjunction with the fishindustry, although at this stage, this hypothesis can not be substantiated.48

We think it a very probable hypothesis that theywere used for fish process-ing.

9. Residential Areas

Aswemight expect, the evidence of houses inMagdala indicates a range ofeconomic status. The excavations to thewest of the Franciscan compound(SBFAreaH, see fig. 3) uncovered parts of houses belonging to thewealthyelite, including a peristyle courtyard. Two other wealthy houses have beenfairly fully excavated in the northern area (UNAM Area A, buildings E1and E3, see fig. 4). The more sumptuous of these (E1) is now labelledthe House of theDice because dicewere found in a room that also featuresa floor mosaic (E1C13). This house has fifteen rooms, two stepped poolsand a courtyard, while the house across the street (E3) has a courtyard, atleast ten rooms, and at least one stepped pool (it has not been fully exca-vated). The three stepped pools have been identified as miqvaot of aunique kind (though a kind for which the rules in the Mishnah allow)in that they were filled from groundwater.49 However, the function ofthese pools is not entirely clear, since they closely resemble the steppedpools in the baths.

One house a good deal further down the spectrum of quality has beenfully excavated (UNAM Area C, building E7, see fig. 4). It has ten roomsand a courtyard (and possibly one or twomore rooms in a second storey).Since many fishing implements were found in one room and the buildingis not far from the shore of the lake, itmaywell have been the residence of a

48 D.Avshalom-Gorni andA.Najjar, Migdal: PreliminaryReport,HadashotArkheologi-yot: Excavations andSurveys in Israel 125 (2013), http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120 (accessed January 10, 2015).

49 R. Reich and M. Zapata-Meza, A Preliminary Report on theMiqwaot of Migdal, IEJ64 (2014), 6371; id., TheMiqvaot of Magdala, on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee, inAviam, Bauckham and De Luca, Magdala, Jewish City of Fish (see n. 3).


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

fishing family. The courtyard and the three rooms adjoining it show ev-idence of storing, processing and cooking food, suggesting that this part ofthe house (somewhatmore than a third of the total area),which also had itsown external entrance, was devoted to such uses. It seems large for theneeds of the inhabitants of the rest of the house. Since no less thanseven grinding stones were found in the courtyard it is possible thatthis part of the house was a small bakery. Fishing was not a profitable oc-cupation and a fishing family might well make up its income from a bak-ery.

10. Conclusion

Magdala as we now know it deserves to feature significantly in our under-standing of theGalilean context of Jesus.We nowknow that it was amajorurban center, the third most important settlement in Lower Galilee afterSepphoris and Tiberias, while its location just a few miles south of Caper-naum makes it more relevant to Jesus Galilean ministry than either ofthose cities. The road from Nazareth or Cana to Capernaum, throughtheWadiHamamvalley,must have run right beside the northern entranceto Magdala or even actually through the city. The lack of reference to it inthe Gospels (other than as implied in Mary Magdalenes identifying epi-thet)50 requires reflection, but it would be hard to believe that Jesusnever entered the city. Even if he deliberately avoided it most of thetime, the people of Magdala must have been prominent among thosewho flocked to be healed by him and to hear his preaching. It may wellhave been the wealthy elite of Magdala, some of whose houses we nowknow, that Jesus had in mind when he denounced the rich.

The importance of Magdala does not lie only in itself. We can nowbegin to build up a much clearer picture of the area around the northwestshore of the lake of Galilee, fromMagdala to Capernaum, including boththe Wadi Hamam valley and the plain of Gennesaret. If we take into ac-count, not onlyMagdala itself, but the settlements at Arbel, KhirbetWadiHamam, Abu Shusheh and Horvat Kur, as well as the indications of hab-itation suggested in Ken Darks survey of the area north of Magdala,51 it is

50 Whether the nameLacadam in Matt 15:39 is a corruption of Magdala we cannot dis-cuss here.

51 K.R.Dark, Archaeological Evidence for aPreviouslyUnrecognizedRomanTownNearthe Sea of Galilee, PEQ 145 (2013), 185202. The claims in this essay need to be treatedwith caution pending the full publication of the results of the survey.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

clear that thiswhole areawas heavily populated in the time of Jesus, doubt-less owing to the famous fertility of the plain of Gennesaret and to theflourishing fishing industry of which Magdala was the center and Caper-naum a part. The high population of the area may be one of the reasonsJesus chose to make Capernaum his base.

Many of the small settlements in this area can be considered satellites orsuburbs of Magdala, which would have been the main market for theirproduce and which clearly dominated the fishing industry on the lake.Just how Capernaum, at the eastern extreme of the area, would have re-lated to Magdala, economically and socially, is an important issue to bepursued, but we cannot doubt that it was related and we must revisethe impression sometimes given that Capernaumwas a rather isolated vil-lage. Instead of situating Jesus andCapernaum very broadly within LowerGalilee, we can now explore the more particular dynamics and character-istics of this more specific area, which, as well as its links with the rest ofGalilee, also belonged to the world around the lake that constituted a dis-tinctive region in itself. As a key point of transit for trade and travellersMagdala was doubtless also a center for the diffusion of ideas and fashionsfrom near and far.

Studies of the Galilee of Jesus have debated the relationship of urban torural Galilee and the extent of Hellenization and Romanization. Magdalaas we nowknow it provides ample evidence bearing on these issues. Alongwith Greco-Roman architecture and urban and domestic design, Mag-dalas more leisured citizens, at least, adopted the culture of the baths.But there is no reason to think they found this inconsistent with Jewishreligious observance. Whether by bathing in the lake or in miqvaot intheir homes, they doubtless followed purity rules, which were evidentlyalso scrupulously observed in the manufacture of the citys famous fishproducts. The synagogue, the first excavated example of the many inwhich Jesus taught, was not merely a place for discussing civic affairs,but, as its remarkable decorated stone reveals, a context intentionally re-lated to the Jerusalem Temple. All this confirms the picture of GalileanJudaism as observant of Torah and oriented to the Temple, which mostrecent study has tended to endorse, while at the same time it shows thatthe adoption of aspects of Greek and Roman culture that were not per-ceived as entailing idolatry was also an unproblematic part of the life ofthe urban elite.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

A Select Bibliography of Magdala

Excavation reports: Southern area

Abu-Uqsa, H. Migdal: Final Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Sur-veys in Israel 117 (2005): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=238&mag_id=110.

Avshalom-Gorni, D. Migdal: Preliminary Report (11 Nov 2009). Hadashot Ark-heologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121 (2009): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1236&mag_id=115.

Corbo, V. Scavi Archeologici a Magdala (19711973). LASBF 24 (1974), 537.Corbo, V. La Citt Romana di Magdala: Rapporto Preliminare dopo la Quarta Cam-

pagna di Scavo: 1Ottobre8Dicembre 1975. Pages 355378 in StudiaHierosolymi-tana inOnore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti, vol. 1, StudiArcheologici.Edited byE. Testa, I.Mancini and M. Piccirillo. SBF Collectio Maior 22. Jerusalem, 1976.

Corbo, V. La Piazza e Villa Urbana a Magdala. LASBF 28 (1978), 232240.De Luca, S. Magdala Project 2007: Preliminary Report. Notizario: Studium Biblicum

Franciscanum Jerusalem (20062007), 1217.De Luca, S. La Citt-Ellenistico-Romano diMagdala/Tarichaeae: Gli Scavi delMagdala

Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione Preliminare e Prospettive di Indagine. LASBF 49(2009), 343562.

De Luca, S. Magdala Project (20092011).Notizario: StudiumBiblicumFranciscanumJerusalem (20102011), 2223.

Lena,A. Magdala 2007: Preliminary Report.HadashotArkheologiyot: Excavations andSurveys in Israel 125 (2013): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=4342&mag_id=120.

Lena,A. Magdala 2008: PreliminaryReport.HadashotArkheologiyot: Excavations andSurveys in Israel 125 (2013): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=5433&mag_id=120.

Excavation reports: Northern area

Avshalom-Gorni, D., and A. Najjar, Migdal: Preliminary Report. Hadashot Arkheo-logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125 (2013): http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120.

Cinamon, G. Migdal: Final Report (16 Sep 2014). Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excava-tions and Surveys in Israel 126 (2014): http://hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=11620&mag_id=121.

Zapata-Meza, M. Magdala Archaeological Project (20102012): Preliminary Report.Forthcoming in Atiqot.

Other literature on Magdala

Aviam, M. The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal: A Holistic Interpre-tation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean Jews at the Time of Jesus. NovT 55(2013), 205220.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

Aviam, M., R. Bauckham, and S. De Luca, eds. Magdala, Jewish City of Fish. Waco, Tex. ,forthcoming, 2016.

Bauckham, R. Further Thoughts on the Migdal Synagogue Stone. NovT 57 (2015),113135.

Binder, D.B. The Mystery of the Magdala Stone. Pages 1748 in A City Set on a Hill :Essays in Honor of James F. Strange. Edited by D.A. Warner. Mountain Home, Ark.,2014.

Bonnie, R., and J. Richard. Building D1 at Magdala Revisited in the Light of Public-Fountain Architecture in the Late-Hellenistic East. IEJ 62 (2012), 7188.

Dark, K.R. Archaeological Evidence for a Previously Unrecognized RomanTown Nearthe Sea of Galilee. PEQ 145 (2013), 185202.

De Luca, S. Scoperte Archeologiche Recenti attorno al Lago di Galilea: Contributo alloStudio dellAmbiente del Nuovo Testamento e del Ges Storico. Pages 18111(here7889) in TerraSancta: Archeologia ed Esegesi : Atti dei Convegni 2008 2010. Editedby G. Paximadi and M. Fidanzio. ISCAB Serie Archeologica 1. Lugano, 2013.

De Luca, S. , and A. Lena. Magdala. In Galilee in the Late Second Temple and MishnaicPeriods 100 BCE 200 CE, vol. 2, The Archaeological Record of Galilean Cities, Towns,and Villages. Edited by D. Fiensy and J.R. Strange. Minneapolis, forthcoming.

De Luca, S. , and A. Lena. The Harbor of the City of Magdala/Tarichaeae on the Shoresof the Sea of Galilee, from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Times: New Discoveriesand Preliminary Results. In Harbors and Harbor Cities in the Eastern Mediterraneanfrom Antiquity to Byzantium. Recent Discoveries & New Approaches (Istanbul 30/05 01/06/2011). Istanbul, forthcoming.

De Luca, S. , and A. Lena. The Mosaic of the Thermal Bath Complex of Magdala Recon-sidered: Archaeological Context, Epigraphy and Iconography. Pages 133 inKnowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essays in Honour of LeahDi Segni. Edited by G.C. Bottini, L.D. Chrupcaa and J. Patrich. SBF CollectioMaior 54. Milan, 2014.

Kokkinos, N. The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of Tiberius? PEQ 142 (2010),723.

Leibner, U. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. TSAJ127. Tbingen, 2009 (here pp. 214 237).

Manns, F. Magdala dans les Sources Littraires. Pages 307337 in Studia Hierosolymi-tana in Onore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti, vol. 1, Studi Archeologici. Edited by E. Testa, I.Mancini and M. Piccirillo. SBF Collectio Maior 22. Jerusalem, 1976.

Notley, R.S. Genesis Rabbah 98,17 And Why Is It Called Gennosar? Recent Discov-eries at Magdala and Jewish Life on the Plain of Gennosar in the Early Roman Pe-riod. Pages 140157 in Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in LateAntique Palestine. Edited by S. Fine and A. Koller. SJ 73. Berlin, 2014.

Reich, R., and M. Zapata-Meza. A Preliminary Report on the Miqwaot of Migdal. IEJ64 (2014), 6371.

Taylor, J. Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary Magdalene. PEQ 146 (2014), 209223.

Zangenberg, J. Magdala: Reich an Fisch und Reich durch Fisch. Pages 9398 in Lebenam See Gennesaret: kulturgeschichtliche Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region. Ed-ited by G. Fassbeck, S. Fortner, A. Rottloff and J. Zangenberg. Mainz, 2003.


Del

iver

ed b

y Pu

blish

ing

Tech

nolo

gySt

efan

o De

Luc

a 87

.19.

60.1

0 Sa

t, 02

May

201

5 08

:22:

41Co

pyrig

ht M

ohr S

iebe

ck

Zapata-Meza, M., ed. El Proyecto Arqueolgico Magdala. El Pensador Monogrficos 5,2013. (A collection of 13 articles related to the excavations in the northern area.)

Richard Bauckham11 Archway CourtCambridge, CB3 [email protected]

Stefano De LucaMagdala Project directorvia della Resistenza, 3970013 Castellana Grotte (Bari)[email protected]


Documents

magdala as we know it